[READY][GF: Phase 1 Proposal] Karma discourse forum plugin

We supported Karma in writing this proposal and will abstain from voting, but we believe their proposal will add great value to the Optimism ecosystem.

1 Like

Hey @mmurthy thanks for the proposal. As a member of the tooling committee I am reviewing this proposal.

I have a few questions.

  1. Much like your other proposal with the dashboard can you provide a detailed budget breakdown of the expenses (and also edit the OP for them)?
  2. What exactly is the delegate pitch? Is it the “commitment” post that one makes when they join the optimism forum and apply to be a delegate?
  3. The reasoning for the proposal would be an explanation of the vote? So a specific response in a forum post? What if the reasoning is split between multiple posts? Also in the screenshot I see a “FOR” checkmark. How does it detect the vote? Do you also somehow connect with snapshot?

Thanks, I have updated the OP with the clear breakdown. I am happy to go into more technical details as to what it will take to build these features.

That is right, it’s the commitment post. I also updated the OP with more issues I learned talking to Optimism team.

Correct, lot of delegates have started posting the explanation for why they voted. The reasoning will be entered in a form on the plugin and when submitted, it posts to the forum thread as one single post. So, it won’t be split between multiple posts.

Yeah, we connect to Snapshot and pull your vote history and display it. When you enter explanation through this new form we will create, everyone will be able to see your explanation right next to your vote instead of going digging in the forum to find it. That explanation will also be displayed in the delegate dashboard we are building (the other proposal).

Happy to answer any specific questions and open to suggestions/feedback on any of these given you are a very active delegate.

1 Like

Similar to the other post how would you incorporate the committee work in such a plugin? Since the committees basically make a recommendation and most delegates would just simply follow it OR if not would have to indeed post a reasoning.

1 Like

That’s an interesting point. They have to post a reasoning individually because the reasoning is per user per proposal and can’t map to committee as such.

1 Like

Interesting proposal. My main concern is that I think the exact features of such an experimental product, in such a dynamic space, might be hard to come up with. Well, at least for me.

I would much prefer if this would be more feedback-based, iterative process. I can’t say if proposed features will lead to a perfect addition to OP’s discourse. IMO this proposal could use a bigger budget, longer timespan, and community feedback after delivering each tiny piece. I would love to know what others think about this.

I am on the same boat as yours. Its all depends on foundation goal with Dicourse, how long are we going to use this ? We are working on iteration so it might happen that from next season we are using a new platform. Are we going to use Discourse for Citizen house too ? There are many assumption and point to consider here, best approach in this dynamic fast moving space is to, like you have said, work in iteration.

The team has already done similar plugin for other DAO so, I assume, doing it again would not be a problem. I am not able to understand the future use case because of uncertainties but in current state, I would support this proposal. If the team has a bigger plan then I agree that a more detailed proposal is needed.


Not sure if something specific needs to be tailored for committee work since a recommendation doesn’t remove responsibility from delegates in making a decision, but simplifies the process of making an informed decision.

Especially if individual delegate compensation becomes an option in the future, delegates should still state their reasoning, whether or not they are following a recommendation.

This plugin simplifies the workflow in governance and brings a level of needed transparency within governance, as we can see in ENS and Gitcoin. As previously mentioned, we supported Karma in the writing of this proposal and will abstain, but experimentation is a big part of governance, especially Optimism.

1 Like

Thanks @krzkaczor. I can say we are committed to maintaining and enhancing this plugin and are willing to work with the community. Our hope is the learnings here can be easily carried over to other DAO forums as well.

I can update the proposal to longer timespan and bigger budget, I am looking for advice from the committee on what is reasonable :pray:

1 Like

@krzkaczor @lefterisjp would appreciate any feedback on next steps or anything else I can answer.

1 Like

Appreciate your proactive approach towards feedback. Please update your proposal to reflect as part of Cycle 7 and make sure to include your proposal to Cycle 7 Roundup thread, once you have support from two delegates.

1 Like

I am an Optimism delegate [Delegate Commitments - #18 by katie] with sufficient voting power and I believe this proposal is ready to move to a vote.


Thanks for sharing!

I am an Optimism delegate [Delegate Commitments - #37 by linda] with sufficient voting power and I believe this proposal is ready to move to a vote.


1. Presentation

We are an officially recognized Tooling Governance Committee, responsible for assessing proposals related to tooling and infrastructure (wallets, bridges etc.).

2. About the project

Karma is a reputation system to show DAO delegate activity and rank them by that activity. They are already being used by other DAOs, notably the gitcoin DAO to help token holders decide on who to delegate their tokens.

The proposal is for the project to enhance an already created discourse forum plugin that provides delegations/activity stats for users.

3. About the following

Karma submitted a proposal on the 6th of September: https://gov.optimism.io/t/review-gf-phase-1-proposal-karma-delegate-dashboard/3411. Various delegates interacted with the proposal including a committee member (@lefterisjp).

4. About the proposal valuation

In this part, we focus on the following aspects:

  • Added value (good to bad): neutral**.** Having a discourse plugin designed to help with delegates and how they review proposals may be helpful but hard to quantify.
  • Impact or expected usage (high to low) low: This proposal will only work for people who use discourse and use the plugin
  • Current Status [Development stage/¿Open Source?] (early to ready) ready: The project already has a plugin. The proposal is to do a few enhancements on top.
  • Expenditure plan and distribution (appropriate to inappropriate) appropriate: After a query from our committee member the team provided a budget breakdown that makes sense.
  • Amount requested (high to low) low: The amount seems good for the effort needed

5. KPIs and impact tracking

The best way to track the impact of this proposal would be to:

  1. Have the enhancements implemented.
  2. Perform a user survey to the optimism community to provide feedback on the plugin and how they use it in the governance forums to determine whether such an experiment is a good idea or not.
  3. Depending on the feedback given by the users continue with another small grant based on the results of that feedback



Voted yes - Following the Tooling Committee recommendation and I am also a big fan of DAO tooling.


Voting YES following the recommendation we published with the tooling committee of which I am a member


Voting: Yes

Following our own Tooling committee recommendation, Karma discourse forum plugin is a very interesting feature that is something worth to see in favour of governance experience.

Snapshot vote - passed

@mmurthy can you provide a Telegram handle or other contact method so the Optimism team can get in touch about paying out this grant! Feel free to DM or email palash@optimism.io