The forum of Optimism need to be the backbone of our governance. The forum will be a place to share proposals, bounce ideas, rank proposals and promote engaged members to suiting roles.
Different roles that are needed are a treasury, voters and proposal promoters.
The goal should be too automate as many tasks as possible to make pay for work efficient.
What do we want? We want to grow OP as much as possible with the least possible resistance. That’s why we should create different groups and the most important one is the workers/builders.
Builders are incentivized to build and improve OP because they are paid. It is very important to pay the right amount of OP to the right builders and that’s we’re the voter comes in. The voters task is to make the final decision on who’s getting founds and who’s not.
How do we build a system were voters are incentivized to do real work and diligence to vote and vote the right way?
The voters should earn tokens from voting and could earn even more if they spend less OP, but still manage to create growth.
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 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.
Proposal promoters role is to filter and fine tune proposals. The forum should be there to lift proposals and ideas and the most active and liked posters on the forum will get the rank proposal promoters. The title will last 1 month, a voting period and a salary will be paid out. If 100% of the OP issuance are voted on to be used, the promoter will be paid a full salary. The promoters salary is based on the % of OP that are used that month. If 75% is used salary is 75% if 25% is used salary is 25% of max salary. If 0% are passed salary will be 0% and the promoters will be inalienable for next month’s promotion to proposal promotor.
The base salary of the promoters will be based upon the growth of OP as ecosystem.
The voter and the Promoter will work in symbiosis were voter are driven to spend as little OP as possible, but at same time grow the ecosystem. The promoters are driven to make the voter spend al OP of that period, and also grow the ecosystem because of their re base pay.
A voters history should also be visible, a top list of best voters. How to measure the performance of voters? The voter that gets the most of OP in relation to the amount of OP staked, the total % of possible earnings as a voter.
This list makes it easy for people who wants to delegate their stake to a voter with the best voting performance.
The voter that is a delegate should be able to charge a % for managing a persons stake.
This makes it easier for a person to work as a delegate.
I imagine a governance dashboard is in the works. Once this is place, delegates can be measured on their voter participation and any other metrics the community feels appropriate such as communication, amount of tokens delegated, etc. I would be happy to help create a governance structure!
I love being a part of creating the modern governance, a place where voters are inline with the growth of the system.
I feel like the first thing i should do is to express my thoughts about it, be part of the conversation.
to be clear, by the way, i’m ambivalent about this proposal as written. not to overuse the term but i think there ought to be a discussion from first principles on growing the base of active voters and engaged delegates, and there are a lot of loose ends that can occur from, e.g., outright paying for participation
but i’m certainly interested in maintaining a dashboard and having this discussion on gov structure
Yes i agree ambivalent nature of the proposal. But i have not come up with a better solution for the problem about voting. To do a good job as a voter you need to dedicate a lot of time to research proposals, preferably like a full time job. If we want to decentralize the voting process, so everyone with the will and skill can become a voter, and dedicate their life to it. We need to monetize that role so people can free up enough time and dedication to do a good job.
What do you think about that?
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.
Thank you for taking part in the discussion.
I agree with you on all this. I just think that it would be better if growth of Optimism have an even more direct feedback loop to the voter.
The risk i see with committees is that you centralize the decisions more, but i also see a great value of getting insight and perspective from the great minds of the game.
They can vote the right way. The point is to incentivize a person so they can work full time as a voter. If a person can dedicate their life to the process, the process will improve. For sure people can do it now, i would just like a more direct and clear path to the correct vote.
I agree again. My point is just to create a more direct and a way to measure success a voter within the system itself.
Proposal promoters role is more like the suggested committees role, just a lite bit more decentralized.
In our forum only citizens should be allowed to post. The most active citizens of Optimism with the most liked and engaged posts should be offered a term as a proposal promoter.
There role is to make sure that all OP issued should be spent. This is to incentivize them to lift and promote the best ideas to get funding.
So the voters/delegates is like yin and the promoter is like yang, every were a balance is needed. Thats why we keep on seeing yin and yang repeatedly in nature.
You are proposing the creation of a new entity that will receive a “lifetime” salary from the OP for the work that delegates do now.
What is not clear and correct in the current governance process?
What makes it more decentralised?
30 accounts can be created that will appreciate each other, so they will occupy all positions, and governance will be compromised.
Delegates will just vote… then why people will delegate tokens, now people delegate tokens to delegates because delegates have experience, knowledge, do an expertise, analyze proposals, improve proposals. If the delegates are just going to vote, and they don’t get involved in the process, and they don’t do everything they do now, there is no sense in delegating.
Yin & Yang is balance in a person, balance in delegates’ work, analysis-improve/vote.
No, you first need to stake OP and then vote. If you don’t have a stake in the network and don’t vote you will not get a reward.
The direct effects of the network growth now and in the coming year. And again I’m not saying its “not” clear i say “more” clear path.
The more things you can automate the better it is. This is an automated process that promotes a citizen to the role, based on the criteria mentioned. If you do not perform in the measured areas the person will be ineligible for next period.
If we do not figure out a way if identifying our citizens no democratic process is possible. I would suggest some kind of KYC.
To me voting means to have experience, knowledge, do an expertise, analyze proposals, improve proposals. Otherwise you are just a wasted vote.
Finally, you have taken some familiar OP governance terms, changed them around, offered new roles, and proposed this as a new governance structure. And the ‘promoter’ role completely devalues the delegates.
Regarding the financial benefits, with such a % it will be more advantageous to vote than to engage and contribute to the ecosystem.
You can’t offer such a %, it will lead to a mathematical, financial, and social error.
Why? The promoter is less important to the system and the voters/delegates gets more of the OP issuance. If i give you an example, the committee is now paid 20 k usd equivalent in OP for 3 months of work there is supposed to be 4 committee’s. So if we just use the OP that is suggested to be used on committees, we can pay 1,3 k per month to 20 promoters with same cost as now planed.
I don’t understand why delegates are undermined they are in a way the bosses of the promoters. If the voters/delegates don’t like the ideas of the promoters they get a pay cut. If a promoter performs bad enough they get blocked from next month promoter position.
This is just a hypothetical %. Much more calculations needs to be performed to get more exact numbers.
What suggestions would you have about improving the proposal?
You just want to hire 20 people where there is no need.
“bosses”))) Governance that is based on equality has more positive effects, any hierarchy has a negative effect in the end.
You want to create another project for this governance structure, maybe you create a project and implement this governance structure.
What qualifications and knowledge must this promoter have to agree to work full time for 1.3k
Again you have to build something to give salary to 20 people, a complication that is unnecessary and has no advantages.
I don’t support this proposal, it just complicates the governance process, and has no benefit to the ecosystem, the main purpose of this proposal is to hire 20 people (promoters) the need is not there, and that devalues delegates. And another purpose is excessive rewards for governance participants, it will be time for delegates and other voting participants to be rewarded, probably after the retroPGF launch.
This governance structure for Token House is not necessary, and certainly no secretaries and bosses are needed.