OPUser - Delegate Communication Thread

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


Thanks for the update and the good work. I find it a pretty fair approach.


Now post by the way.

You are pointing to good reasons. Actually I as someone who just joined the Optimism Collective, expected to see more interactions on discord, and of course on the Twitter rolling around the Optimism Collective. I have found the idea and the Vision very profound and thorough. I will check the proposals that you posted here, hope in near future, I get the chance to vote. Have fun


Voted in favor of both proposal.

Bedrock upgrade was discussed quite in depth and happy to support it. Looking forward to what next for Optimism collective and added value Bedrock upgrade will bring.

Fractal has done quite a lot of work and I know their project from Galand NFT, their first mint. But doxing is a no go, we should respect everyone’s privacy. Supporting their suspension, I do hope he will stick around and come back stronger once the ban is lifted.


There are lot to digest for upcoming season 4, I will try to put a short summary of what coming up next (refer here for everything around season 4)

Season 4 will work towards collective goal or intent. Collective Intents

Intent - you/ the Foundation set goal/mission and propose a budget, once the said goal is achieved, reward will be distributed.

initial/most mission would be set by the Foundation and budget would be approved by token house.

Council lead(s) are expected to put forward the budget proposal. Token House Missions
Mission - a time boxed event,well defined, start-to-finish, tightly scoped goal to achieve one of the intents.

Two type -

  1. proposed - own budget -approved by token house- fund will come gov fund
  2. Foundation mission - defined by the Foundation - fund will come from Foundation Fund. Existing Foundation mission could be found here - Foundation Missions (RFPs) · GitHub

Anyone, individual, group or an organization, refer as an Alliances, can propose and execute a mission(proposed or accept Foundation Mission. More on Alliances Season 4 Alliance Guide

Funds are determined by trust tier. -Not summarizing it as the complete article is a must read, its a step towards Optimism Attestation station. Collective Trust Tiers

changes suggested above are amalgation and improvement from already existing dao such as ENS, Gitcoin and as a curtsey, foundation will nomicate them in next RPGF round.

Delegate retroactive reward for their contribution can be found here. Retroactive Delegate Rewards: Season 3 - #2


My One Year in this collective movement!!!

What a journey, learned a lot, tried my best to contribute with my time and limited knowledge, we had some up and down but I remain bullish and looking forward to new challenges.

A successful first iteration of RPGF, Base building on top of Optimism and client diversity by a16z and Karl taking role of CEO, good vibes all around.

During second season of gov, I, along with other delegate and community member, were asking for on-chain report on usage and impact of fund distributed to projects. Goal was to understand the loose end, look at short coming, learn from them and apply those learning in upcoming season. Stopped following up on my Goverance Fund Accountability - An overview thread because of lack of Dune knowledge and support from project.

But we have support from OPLab team and they published there detailed report on monthly basis, Apr 2023 - Governance Call OP Rewards Analytics Update , Mar 2023 - Governance Call OP Rewards Analytics Update I encourage everyone to read them. Liquidity mining impact was short lived, as anticipated by other delegate, even for project with multiple grant approved by the collective. For example, Pooltogether[1]has a clear decline in tvl [defillama] even with multiple grant approved and same goes with most, if not all, protocols. Seems we are burning oil just to keep the fire alive. I was in favor of PT second proposal because the ask was relatively low and their impact from first grant to visible and seemed sustainable, at least at that time, which is not the case. In retrospective, there are much to learn here -

  1. we should not approve multiple proposal from same project, might be an exception when second proposal is completely different from the first one
  2. there must be some gap between first and second, few weeks at least

There has been lot of proposal so far, some were successful, for others we need to wait for couple more months while rest were not fully disaster as we learned something from them. Going forward, my request from collective would be to pull back a little from granting funds to existing project and rather focus on new project bringing new ideas and innovation, we have some good, positive hype going on because of RPGF and we should use it to foster and incubate new innovative protocol, invite developer from different region, fund and support them.

Two of my personal favorites domain which need more support and encouragement are privacy and gaming. Privacy is one major pillar of blockchain, even EY is building a private chain, and i wish to see more project building around it, natively on Optimism. Firn[2] could not make it to final list of grant recipient, and with aztech moving towards their own chain, I hope they will come back stronger in next round. Look around, Polygon is building with Immutable, Starknet is collaborating with unstoppable games, Nike is bullish on Metaverse and list goes on, onchain gaming and metaverse has huge potential, an unexplored domain full of challenges, uncertainty and opportunities.

1- Mention of pooltogether should not be treated a targeted comment on them or any other project.
2- I invited Firn to submit their proposal and was helping them with gov related queries, I dont have any connection with them. Just personally motivated to support privacy protocol.

  1. final-inflation-adjustment-proposal - in favor

  2. treasury-appropriation-proposal-foundation - Against

For both proposal, I agree with discussion and echo Polynya comment.

  1. Grant Council
    Choose to abstain - From season 1, I was encouraging and asking for accountability of fund, from OP Foundation and also from individual grant recipient, now that we have support from OP Lab, lack of support and discussion on fund accountability from grant council is disappointing.
    How to Contribute: OP Rewards Analytics
    We have delegate in grant council with online presence reaching wide and far, I am not suggesting we police the grant recipient, least we can do is it to put some social pressure.

For @Oxytocin , its their first nomination so choose to vote in favor of them.

On topic of accountability, I would like encourage other delegates to provide reasoning for their vote. For small and new delegate like myself, we look up to you, we expect that you have knowledge and wisdom to properly evaluate and judge critical proposals, lead us and this collective with good example. Just casting vote in silence put us in shadow give a bad outlook.

Looking forward towards next iteration of our evolving DAO.


Intent 1

voted in favor of all except one in Intent 1, I was skeptical of Scry Protocol but given their feedback happy to support them.

My rational for not voting in favor of [FINAL] Spearbit + Immunefi Bug Bounty Program for Large Protocols Building on Optimism - #27 by OPUser. Given that the protocol team got roughly 1M in last year just from their protocol native token emission, I believe they should be in a good position to support their audit and we should rather support FOSS project in incubation with less or little financial support.

Will finalize intent 3 in next few day(s).

1 Like

Intent 4 Proposal

Intent 4 was challenging, in some proposal it was not clear how they related their proposal with intent in place, some lack detailed budget planning while others does not have a proper milestone in place.

Scope of Intent 4, below, is wide and this is also our first iteration along with that I acknowledge the knowledge gap and lack of awareness in general public, which is why I am voting in favor of most proposal.

Missions to educate the broader community about Optimism governance and RetroPGF, increase the resiliency of core governance infrastructure, create user friendly interfaces to interact with governance programs, or promote a welcoming governance community are all well-aligned with this Intent.”

I could not bring myself to vote in favor of two proposal(waiting for feedback on 1) and my rationals are


Intent 3 - Spread Awareness of the Optimistic Vision

Few thoughts -

3F - [FINAL] Let's take the Optimistic Vision to LATAM with Espacio Cripto

3G - [FINAL] Spread Optimistic values accross Latam with Solow

Both targeting similar audience, while one has relatively higher ask, I have heard only good thing about Espacio Cripto when I was evaluating their RPGF proposal and happy to support them one more time.

I believe 3C([FINAL] BanklessDAO’s Global Campaign to spread the Optimistic vision) amount is little high but at the same time I have no digital marketing experience to justify otherwise. Voting in favor because its falls under education domain and amount was discussed here and here

3H- [FINAL] Develop the most relevant and aligned audiovisual content for the Optimism Collective it seems this proposal was not discussed enough but they addressed my main concern here, voted in favor

3I - [FINAL] Thank Optimism - powered by ThriveCoin , huge shoutout to @Jrocki and @thrivegiraffe for answering all the queries raised by the collectives. I have been part of this collective since the beginning and this proposal might the third most discussed on this forum(after Curve and Velodrome proposal), both were polite and their responses were not only addressing the question but also encouraging discussion, all withing the boundary of code of conduct.

Still I believe the amount is quite high at the same time their proposal is quite optimistic, I would consider this proposal as high reward high risk.

If anyone has doubt about Thrivecoin, response from team to a similar comment from Jack.

Voted in favor of most proposal except below ones

  1. [FINAL] Fueling RetroPGF Growth through Education, Collaboration, and Active Marketing

I dont think sponsering booth booking and sponsorship cost is a suitable candidate for this intent category. Not a deciding factor but few queries remain unanswered.

Those are my final vote for this round, will cast my votes tomorrow. If anyone has any further query, do reach out.


Thank you for depositing your trust in us again @OPUser. We’re working really hard at Espacio Cripto to deliver as much value as possible!


I voted in favor of all proposals.

I want to cover a couple of points:

  1. Although we received mixed reviews about the Code of Conduct (CoC), I still believe we need a CoC and a process to enforce those rules in the community.

  2. While it may seem like we are making too many changes each passing season and complicating the governance process, I don’t share those opinions. Working on iterations, making changes, implementing them, and learning from past seasons has proven to be successful, and I would like to see this continue in the near future.

Keeping up with everything happening with the DAO takes a significant amount of delegate time, which might be causing the problem. What we are trying to do and why might be unclear due to missing context. This could be avoided by providing a little more time to review the new changes.

In the upcoming season, I am looking forward to reading the Milestones and Metrics Reviewer’s report. I hope to see them also cover past seasons

1 Like

This is a great topic. We would like to introduce you and all of the other Grantees to the GAP.

We had the honor of helping to Beta test the Grantee Accountability Protocol.

Now everyone who has received a grant from Optimism or even Retroactive funds can easily attest onchain to their grant with milestones that are completed. Showing proof of impact!

This will be a great :+1: tool for helping keep track of the OP that has been distributed in the past as well as a time saver for delegates searching for information on past projects milestone accomplishments. We highly encourage the adoption of tooling like this in order to improve the overall management of grants.

1 Like

Voting for RPGF3 will start tomorrow, and I would like to share a few words about how I will be voting in this round.

  1. Being an early collective member, I have seen everything related to Optimism DAO, whether on the forum, on Discord, or (most of) social media. Therefore, in the governance pillar, I will cast my vote solely based on my judgment.

  2. OP stack and End-user experience & Adoption - This will be a combined effort of the impact mentioned in the application along with due diligence done from my side.

  3. Developer ecosystem - I am not well connected or involved in this domain, so I will seek guidance and input from badge holders I trust. However, I can’t bring myself to vote in this domain, and if I have some funds left, they will be distributed equally among the other three pillars.

The word “public goods” is often misused in our ecosystem, even more so since the announcement of RPGF. To exented, in some case, even blockchain is not truly public good, mentoining LP as public goods is delusional.

This is my understanding of “public”: open source and accessible to anyone without any boundaries, financial or otherwise. For example, a smart contract with an MIT or other open-source license, and the same goes for the frontend. Being publicly accessible is the passing criterion; impact, such as the utilization of the said tool, determines the grant size.

We have had some informative discussions on VC-backed projects, whether to support them or not, and if yes, then in what capacity. To me, RPGF is to reward the impact of public goods, not to fight or replace VCs. I will put VC-backed projects and projects with native tokens in the same category.

During the review, I have seen a couple of media-related applications, and I believe social media has an upper hand compared to others as it inherently includes PR by default. So, I will be looking for the content, not just likes and shares, but actual content. For example, is it a tutorial video on completing an Optimism quest and running an OP node?

Means test - a project run by an individual or group/community being utilized by X number of users and another project with external support being utilized by a multiplier of X, both deserve the same reward.

Note: It’s obvious but still worth mentioning. I won’t be voting on below application.

  1. Self Retro PGF
  2. Summer of Protocol Warpcast

In last round I supported few common goods projects but I dont think they falls under any category in this round.