OPUser - Delegate Communication Thread

I wan to discuss project boosting their delegate power with governance fund

With this Season 1 comes to an end.
A: Rocket Pool - Yes
B: Boardroom - Yes
C: dHedge - Yes
D: xToken - No
E: Byte Mason Product Suite - Yes
F: GARD - No
G: Beefy - Yes

See you in season 2

Edit 1:- With recent development on Byte Mason, I have decide to change my vote from Yes to Abstain.

I see that many users are still not aware of season 2 proposal guideline. Hope this help.

Please ask if you are in doubt.

  1. Grant Proposal Template
  2. Gov-Temp-Check on Discord


Good Part

  1. We are getting fair review of each proposal which was much needed, a huge boost to this gov.
  2. Dicourse is more tightly monitor and managed all thanks to @lavande
  3. Finally we got a dedicated website containing all info related to gov in one place

Some scope of improvement:-

  1. user(s) are still not sure about rules and guidelines of gov process
  2. lack of engagement from community apart from delegates and it going down each passing cycle, @Prometheus you up ?

Cycle 6 Voting:-

I followed the recommendation provided by dedicated committees except for bankless-academy where I voted against.

Public funding is one the major steps towards Ether’s Phoenix and we have a dedicated funding for that but that does not necessarily mean we should wait for Citizen house to be active before considering funding public good. But to me, if we are funding public good from Gov fund it must be focused only towards Optimism.

With RPGF we fund public good retroactively, impact = profit, and in long run I wish to see us going beyond public funding and towards funding common good.

Few other thoughts in general.


Voted in accordance with Committee recommendation except for Tarot .

Overall this cycle not smooth, debate on late proposal submission, development funding, past fund accountability and some form of gov gate-keeping from different entities.

Hopefully we can discuss all this during coming reflection period and try to learn and improve the gov process.


My Role in L2DAO

With season 2 coming to an end, I see few question surrounding my role with L2DAO project and I would like provide some context around it from my side.

Before actily involved in OP gov as a delegate, I was a discord member of different projects on Optimism including L2DAO when Phase 0 proposal was in incubation. During that time, L2DAO was seeking their community feedback on forming the proposal in a way to maximize its impact on project.

There were other community member active on their discord, helping each other, topic of discussion was not limited to Phase 0 proposal but all web3 space including discussion on other chain, nft and metaverse.

To encourage community engagement, especially from new users, L2DAO created a new Discord role by name L2DAO “Jade” , similar to “nerd”, “developer”, “contributor” and so on we have on our OP discord.

To recognize overall involvement from community side, they gave this role to me including two other community member. That’s all, that was my role in L2DAO. I hold a discord role for some time, soon after that they redefined their discord architecture and I think this role does not exist anymore. Soon after Phase 0, I got more involved in OP governance, I left many other discord group, including some bigger project on optimism, just because I wanted to focus more on OP gov and I didnt had time and bandwidth to follow up with other project.

In short, I contributed to a DAO, they recognized active contribution by creating a fun discord role which was assigned to me including others. This role does not exist anymore, I got more involved in OP Gov reducing my activity in other project. Left many discord group, still follow few but not active as I used to be.

Hope this help.


Season 2 Feedback

1. Number of OP delegated and participation going down:-

  • Total number of OP Delegated is still going down
  • Overall engagement is lowest, apart from selected committee member and few community member no one is actively taking part in discussion

Suggestion : -

  • We might see flock of new users after second airdrop depending on multiplier on the basis of token delegation and active participation, second boost could be because of Citizen house. Citizen house will come sooner than the second airdrop and I expect that to create some good vibe and may boost engagement on token house too.
     1. An independent entity should monitor engagement from community on this 
        forum and reward them retroactively. (could not be gamed easily). 
     2. Taking feedback from active delegates could be another option, they might
        know who has contributed during feedback cycle
     3. Point based reward system (likes + times replied to and so on) - as 
        mentioned by SR + Prometheus on Season 2 feedback Thread. Could be gamed
        but I am in favor of trying this for one season.  
     4. Another similar option could be asking the proposal author to share feedback. 
        From receiver end, if they see impact of a community member and they should
        get some extra point. Repeat and filter it. 
     5. If a user feel their contribution deserves reward, they can create a post, 
        submit and show their contributions.
     6. We can start retroactively, there are couple of active community member 
        on this forum and, I believe, we could try to include them in next season.

2. Road ahead

  • We already know that foundation want us to experiment, suggest and implement changes but we might need hint on road-ahead.

Suggestion : -

  • May be a good idea to set the goal, a short term goal. What do we want to achieve in next 6 months.
  • Are we still focusing on Liquidity and user on-boarding or can we put priority on long term sustainable vision, beyond just LPing and mercenary liquidity.

3. Proposal Evaluation: -

I am no longer looking at Phase 0 but season 1 and 2 was mostly focused towards LPing and user incentives. Going forward I would like to see some changes.

     1. Personally, I am looking at direct protocol iteration. 
     2. May be supporting development of project, incrementally.
     3. Liquidity does look good but as long as OP incentives are on-going. 
        If  you are submitting a second proposal, proper accountability of 
        prior/existing proposal could help. 

Trusted L1 project > Innovative project (even in dev phase) >  user on-boarding > Pure LPing

"How would you know if a fire is self-sustainable if you keep on putting the gas in it ". 

I think it can be pretty simple to begin with - announce that Airdrop #2 is incoming, and OP holders who vote for active delegates will qualify. The exact parameter for what qualifies as “active delegate” can be chosen just before the airdrop. Multipliers to those who were already voting before the announcement, of course. The question is how this can be executed - we need to work with the OF team?

Can think about more complex systems like you mention after that - it’ll be a challenge to make it happen without being gamed.


Special Voting Cycle 9a

Voted in Favor :-

  1. easy to reach consensus when group size is small
  2. communication could be fast tracked, this was a challenge in season 2
  3. Streamline the process, making grant funding less complex

I also believe that putting decision power is few entities could lead to centralization of power and might create an Eco-chamber which will hurt us in long run.

But supporting this proposal because OF is working on iteration, feedback from past season is reflected in this proposal and we are more aligned toward experiment from beginning.

Voted : Against

Governance is difficult, chaotic co-ordination could be tiresome some time, few entities will try to make it political or even worse, a pvp battle. But even after all this, we should try to be more inclusive, inclusive of other protocol, builders and community.

I am reading “skin-in-the-game” narrative as a positive side of this proposal which I agree but what about other protocol bringing more value to our chain even if they are not native ? What do we want to built, a cult or a community ?

I shared the similar thought here and also agree with @BP_Gamma here


Token House Badgeholder Election Information


Special Voting Cycle #9

  1. Builders - @Gonna.eth , @kaereste

    1 Dhannte - He needs no introduction, heavily active in gov, contributing during gov call and got the grant from gov in last season. Happy to support him.
    2. L2Beat - interacted with Kris for short duration in season 2 and L2Beat is doing an excellent job with their platform. I believe they will do justice to this role.
    3. With new changes in place, decided to self-vote.

2 Growth @katie @GFXlabs @MattL @Michael @SEED_LATAM_Joxes

This one was difficult as each individual in this category is equally qualified. Took a different approach -

  1. Joxes and Latam team - Very few can match their engagement in our gov, they are transparent, were part of different sub-committee(s) and leading the Latam community.
  2. Michael and Katie - Both active and quite familiar with web3 space.
  3. GFX Lab - Has vast knowledge of dev and gov, received two grant from gov and contributed heavily to our gov.
  4. Matt - Although I dont agree with couple of decision they have taken in the past, SNX is one of the major pillar of optimism ecosystem, happy to support them in this category.

Protocol delegation
Gave preference to Optimism native protocol


RPGF Round 1. (FAQ & General info)

Now that voting is around the corner and discovery UI is live, I want to start the conversation with my initial thoughts.

With my limited knowledge on public good, there are couple of nomination I would not consider a public good.

  1. A protocol having raised millions in VC/token(sales) funding
  2. Very less impact or at least at early stage
  3. Could be considered as a public good in the past but not anymore

My Focus would be -

  1. Clear and visible impact (one example would be revoke Ui), NiceNode, Orbiter could be another one (there are couple of open question though). Optimism Español , jackxbt and similar under education section.
  2. Must be open sourced
  3. Might consider means-test where needed.

This is not to bash anyone or any project. To me, Optimism two pillar gov model was the main motivation behind joining this collective. Finally, we are moving away from plutocratic voting system and I understand that my vote has equal weightage, like other elected citizen, and I want to be transparent as possible, provide my rational behind every decision, take feedback, iterate and work towards making this collective better.

So, if you have any feedback, please let me know. (comment /dm on this forum or on discord nono#1218)

Note -
Please note that I am not a smart contract developer and may reach out to collective I trust for additional information or may have to skip certain nominations related to development tools, APIs, or packages when casting my vote. Moreover, the guidelines provided by the Optimism Foundation may result in significant changes to the criteria outlined above.


I strongly agree with this, just from the impact perspective it seems obvious that sending $X to a project that has only received a few $ thousand from Gitcoin or whatever will make much more difference than sending that same $X to a project which has raised $ millions in a VC seed round!

Could you expand a bit more on what you mean by:

Could be considered as a public good in the past but not anymore

I’m not sure I understand what kind of thing would fit that category?


Thanks for the insight.

Can I ask, why an early stage project wouldn’t be consider a public good?


I am still in the process of gathering information, but one example I have come across is Uni. While Uni v2 was a public good, its successor, Uni v3, is not. Once you lauch a token, you are in “in-profit” market.

Tally Ho, a wallet I love and use, might be another example. They are depended on grants, gitcoin and similar, but with their upcoming token lauch I am not sure anymore.

One arugemnt I hear - they are still open source, anyone could fork and build upon them and their impact is visible.

Totally valid point however, one could argue that they have already reaped the benefits of their impact through VC funding and token sales. Supporting a team or project that is dependent solely on grants, like you have mentioned, may be a more prudent choice.

There are few gray area and still seeking feedback from collective.


Hey @Vegayp, I was referring to their impact.

RPGF motto is impact = profit. It’s a retroactive grant, which means we should focus on projects/teams that have already made a positive impact through their contributions. Early stage would be part of next round.


Providing a draft of project I am gonna vote in on-going RPGF round.

Rational for Education -

  1. Knowledge content created by them is easily available and add value
  2. Content and area of work is aligned towards Optimism and/or Ethereum
  3. Will there be any impact on Optimism/ethereum if they suddenly disappear
  4. In this category, I am also looking from the social and cultural side

For infra :-

  1. OP Native *
  2. If they are gone, there impact will be clearly visible on Optimism = impact
  3. Not directly OP native but highly aligned with Ethereum
  4. Is this project adding value and should be supported
  • goal is be inclusive here so chain should not matter which is the case in education domain but under infra I am giving preference to Optimism project - Optimism related infra - Ethereum - public good - common good in long term

Note - many project under infra are receiving grant from Protocol Guild(they are also nominated ) and are also part of EIP-4884 collection. Will account this in calculation when casting vote as to not give 3X grant to the same team.

Once list is final, will post it on the rpgf dedicated thread.


Great huge thread that definitely has a lot of information to learn

Definitely handy to keep track of all the previous important milestones, thank you for your work, friend

1 Like