Should we allow Phase 0 Project to Submit a new funding Proposal in Phase 1.
I think with RPGF round upon us and more and more project proposal coming towards us related to public goods, we should work on filtering the definition of public good.
GF Phase 1; Cycle 2 vote and some feedback.
Proposal A: Optimistic Railway - Yes
Proposal B: dForce - Yes
Proposal C: GYSR - No
Proposal D: Mean Finance - Yes
Proposal E: Raptor - No
Proposal F: Balancer & BeethovenX - Yes
Proposal G: Summa - No
Proposal H: WardenSwap - Yes
Proposal I: Pickle Finance - Yes
Proposal J: Ooki Protocol - No
Proposal K: Infinity Wallet - Yes
Proposal L: Beefy - No
Proposal M: 0xHabitat - No
Proposal N: Thales - No
Proposal O: ParaSwap - Yes
Proposal P: Rotki - Yes
Proposal Q: Candide - Yes
Few other suggestion(from Phase 1) that we need to improve on:-
There should be exact date and time on when proposal will go live, not just the date but time too for example 12PM CET, GMT or any time zone will work. This time there was lot of confusion.
Would be great if delegate(s) took some of their time and provide feedback before the proposal goes to voting, I have see that many project(s) are quite active on their proposal, seeking feedback and willing to update and amend their proposal depending the feedback from users/delegates.
What’s the point of giving suggestion when proposal is live, the project team cant amend the suggestion even if they want to, jumping it at the last moment is not helping anyone.
There should be at least 24hr cool down period before bringing proposals to voting, during this time the responsibility will be on project team to make sure that their proposal is adhering to all the requirement and is ready for voting, if they miss to do so, they will be accountable rather than OP Team or delegates.
This one is for me but would like to mention, delegate should be precise in their word when providing their support to a proposal.
We need some active participation from OP team on discord gov channel, during Phase 1, I had few queries related to couple of proposal, I did post them on discord gov general channel but did not got any response from team. Again, as a delegate, its my responsibility to make a judgement call but little help here and there could help me make a better decision.
If project submitting a proposal is not willing to submit a report on their last phase spending sighting extra and unnecessary work, I expect that OP Team should provide us with such a report. This is again just for me, I am not asking other do the same or suggesting on making this a rule but I am willing to invest my time looking at those report so that
a. I can make better decision on the basis of those report.
b. I would like to make sure that funds are being used properly ie. accountability.
This is to the team submitting the proposal focusing on LP and airdrop, on “why the users will stay once incentives are over”; these two are my favorite line
a. users will come for incentive and stay for the product
b. we believe our project has this and this to offer and users will stay because of this
I request you to understand this, those using L2 as their main chain to do their transaction, we dont need someone to tell us about a unique and innovative project, its vice versa, we are looking for them. If I am using a platform just because of an incentive, I will use it as long as incentive exist but on the other hand I will continue to use if the platform is self-sustainable and rewarding me for using it, OP incentive are just a boost, if you need an extra incentive to sustain your project, you need to re-think your stagey. Again, my opinion, highly dependent on individual.
See you all in Phase 2. Cheers!
Feedback is like a medicine
Feedback- When should we give feedback, I work in tadifi and would give an example from my experience, we have 3 month feedback cycle where we provide feedback to each other and of-course by nature feedback should be constructive and not destructive.
In Phase 1, we are providing our reasoning on why we are voting yes/no which is good to have and we should continue this.
I want to discuss the timing, from my experience, if I only give feedback at end of 3 months, I will see the improvement in next quarter but if I share it as I see a scope of improvement, I can see the changes in next days/week.
Similarly, can we work on giving the feedback at early stage so that the project team can improve their proposal before it goes for voting. Think from the project team side, they are active on the forum, spending their time, seeking input, feedback, answering users comment and most important willing to improve their proposal depending on the input. Now, if you only provide feedback at the end when they cant amend their proposal even if they want, what the point of that feedback. Feedback is like a medicine, it works best when given at right time. I feel sympathy with project team and I share their frustration.
Final Voting : Phase 1; Cycle 3
Final result for this phase.
Proposal A: Superfluid : YES
Proposal B: Kromatika : YES
Proposal C: Hundred Finance : YES
Proposal D: Biconomy : YES
Proposal E: Dope Wars : NO
Proposal F: Infinity Wallet : YES
Proposal G: Dexguru : NO
Proposal H: Overnight[.]fi : NO
Proposal I: Saddle Finance : NO
With this Cycle 3 comes to an end and going forward, I would like to see more detailed plan towards token distribution and user retain especially towards project focusing on LP incentive.
Other thing I would to share is focus on co-incentive, if your project is giving APY on providing liquidity to a pool is not a co-incentive but rather a feature of your project/product. What you are willing to offer from your side to match the token request is a co-incentive such as your project token, if your project does have a token our cant provide the co-incentive, mention it as such.
And this is one quite important, if you disagree with any decision or comment, please explain your reasoning and ask open ended question.
This one goes to OP Team, we should follow OP manual and rules mention there and should not consider any proposal if they does not have approval from a delegate with voting power mentioned in the OP Manual.
If you are mentioning something in the manual, stick to it or just remove the line. I saw that they have mentioned that they will follow the rule going forward which is a good thing to see.
See you in Phase 1; Cycle 3.
PS: As usual, I am looking forwards towards your feedback and/or criticism on how to improve the gov and what can I do to support you more.
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.
- We are getting fair review of each proposal which was much needed, a huge boost to this gov.
- Dicourse is more tightly monitor and managed all thanks to @lavande
- Finally we got a dedicated website containing all info related to gov in one place
Some scope of improvement:-
- user(s) are still not sure about rules and guidelines of gov process
- 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 :-
- easy to reach consensus when group size is small
- communication could be fast tracked, this was a challenge in season 2
- 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
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 -
- 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.
- Michael and Katie - Both active and quite familiar with web3 space.
- GFX Lab - Has vast knowledge of dev and gov, received two grant from gov and contributed heavily to our gov.
- 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.
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.
- A protocol having raised millions in VC/token(sales) funding
- Very less impact or at least at early stage
- Could be considered as a public good in the past but not anymore
My Focus would be -
- 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.
- Must be open sourced
- 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)
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.