[READY TO VOTE] Additional Revenue Sources to fund RetroPGF Rounds

🏹 Mission Requests
1

[Draft] Additional Revenue Sources to Fund RetroPGF Rounds

Delegate Mission Request Summary:

Funding RetroPGF currently relies entirely on just two sources: (1) the initial OP allocation and (2) sequencer fees. The former will eventually be depleted, whilst the latter requires Optimism sequencer fees’ revenue to grow ~25x to fund two RPGF3-sized rounds per year. In addition to seeking more ways to grow sequencer revenue, we should consider building additional sustainable revenue sources for RetroPGF, or run the risk of RetroPGF distributions getting ~decimated whilst sequencer fee growth is catching up.

This Mission Request calls for mission teams to work on building additional revenue sources (and grow existing ones) to fund future RetroPGF rounds.

S5 Intent Please list the Intent your Request aligns with here:

2 - Grow the Superchain

Proposing Delegate:

Jack Anorak

Proposal Tier:

Ember

Baseline grant amount:

150k OP (25-100k per alternative revenue source exploration)

Should this Foundation Mission be fulfilled by one or multiple applicants:

Multiple

Submit by:

To be set by Grants Council

Selection by:

To be set by Grants Council

Start date:

If applicable

Completion date:

12 months after being chosen for the grant.

Specification

How will this Delegate Mission Request help accomplish the above Intent?

RetroPGF is one of the driving forces of Optimism’s push for the Superchain, but the current funding sources for RetroPGF are unsustainable and/or insufficient to sustain RetroPGF at its current size, putting the continuity of RetroPGF at risk. This is problematic as retroactive funding only functions as an incentive mechanism for present-day work if contributors can plausibly count on it to be rewarded in the future.

This mission request aims to result in diversifying the revenue sources for RetroPGF, increasing the program’s resilience and ultimately ensuring the continuity of funding for one of the driving forces for growing the Superchain. It also intends to explore in greater depth opportunities to expand sequencer revenue, which is small now but stands to grow substantially.

In addition, it is likely that mission teams contributing to this mission request will end up building new funding primitives on Optimism leading to further progress to growing the Superchain.

What is required to execute this Delegate Mission Request?

  • Teams participating in this mission should have demonstrable experience designing and deploying a novel smart contract (i.e. not exclusively a fork of an existing project)
  • Team members should have experience interacting with DeFi fundraising protocols
  • Teams are required to submit a proposal, which should at minimum include:
    • Design direction to be explored
    • Back of the envelope calculations of scope of funding that could be contributed
    • Intended deliverable
    • The main team members and their relevant past experience
    • Some discussion of potential legal ramifications of executing this plan
  • At the end of each quarter, teams are required to post a progress report on the forums detailing their work and high level plans for the next quarter
  • By December 2024, teams are required to submit a final report detailing their work and the resulting deliverables.

How should the Token House measure progress towards this Mission?

  • Assess viability of revenue sources for funding RetroPGF
  • Monitor additional funding contributions to RetroPGF
  • Assess sustainability of funding during each RetroPGF round in 2024
  • Read quarterly reports posted on the forums by each mission team
  • Assess the quality of the final report presented by each team

How should badgeholders measure impact upon completion of this Mission?

  • Measure the absolute # of new revenue sources for funding RetroPGF
  • Measure the absolute $ contributions of new revenue sources for funding RetroPGF
  • Measure the relative growth of $ contributions of the new revenue sources over time
  • Assess sustainability of RetroPGF funding for future rounds
  • Assess mentions of RetroPGF funding sustainability as a topic on the internet and at conferences

Have you engaged a Grant-as-a-service provider for this Mission Request?

No

Has anyone other than the Proposing Delegate contributed to this Mission Request?

Yes, @garm - wrote first draft of this Mission Request

7 Likes
2

I like this, although I think that maybe the scope is a little big. Rather than 300k OP for between 3-15 alternative sources it would make more sense to fund a smaller discovery effort (maybe 10-20k OP) that evaluates alternative paths and their viability with a quantitative approach so that everyone can make the most informed decisions on such an exploration.

4 Likes
3

yeah i agree with this - i posted this more or less as written but was in the middle of providing editorialization, which started with budget concerns. But maybe we can have a discussion here. What if we did 100k total with 5-20k grants? The reason i’d like to keep some budget overhead would be for groups that are proposing full builds vs research. 300k is way too high.

1 Like
4

Lol man I was about to sponsor this one

2024-01-17_18-13
2024-01-17_18-131037Ă—607 83.1 KB

I agree too with the amount needing some tweaking

4 Likes
5

lol you snooze you lose

3 Likes
6

Yeah I originally had in mind that a great outcome would be full builds that actively contribute to RetroPGF funding, which would warrant grants larger amounts.

Perhaps it’s better to break this up into distinct stages where if this research mission request proves successful a follow up mission request can be created in 3-6 months for projects that actually want to deliver a build.

Downside is probably that you might get lower quality mission teams delivering only research projects, upside is you get more results in a shorter timeframe at lower cost?

2 Likes
7

yeah if anything i don’t mind casting a wider net and allowing more people with data-backed ideas who may not necessarily be able to build them out, and in general i do like iteration more. if there’s an active builder that comes out, depending on what they’re proposing, they could also eventually apply through Grant Council.

when it comes to filtering, i have a lot of faith in the Grant Council to sort out the weaker proposers.

Okay, maybe we leave the scope as is and cut the budget ask down to 50k OP. Realistically that should be a pretty good draw. What do people think? Is this too little?

3 Likes
8

Looking at this sentence I feel the grant amount is low actually. I’ll keep it as it is and let the Grants Council figure out with applicants if the amount requested is correct or not. I would hate watching a good idea pass by because of a constrained budget.

2 Likes
9

I am an Optimism delegate [Agora - OP Voter] with sufficient voting power and I believe this proposal is ready to move to a vote.

Tbh 300k seems reasonable depending on how much it brings in. The prob more about the actual performance, return to profit, scale than amount since if the value in > grant out can be used beyond rpgf and a way to get builders in to build shit as open source op projects that they dont own/need to create a project for.

from
founder allocation>dapp>token>bs value capture to token>founders sell to make money back/VC bs

to
grant prop>build tool that captures value to DAO>reward

3 Likes
10

I think the $100k amount seems rather high per applicant, not sure in which scenario would be justified for this type of research.

Should we also request possible legal implications for every new alternative revenue source being explored?

11

yeah good call on the legal bit. I think the grant council should be fine to do some filtering here (ie not giving out 100k grants unless there’s something really compelling) but leaving allocation here seems sound

1 Like
12

Sounds good!

I am an Optimism delegate with sufficient voting power and I believe this proposal is ready to move to a vote.

13

I am an Optimism delegate with sufficient voting power and I believe this proposal is ready to move to a vote.

14

I am an Optimism delegate [Blockchain@USC] with sufficient voting power and I believe this proposal is ready to move to a vote.

15

I am an Optimism delegate with sufficient voting power and I believe this proposal is ready to move to a vote.

16

Love the concept as you know, but I’m having trouble seeing the type of valid mission that will apply.

I wouldn’t want to see a grant like this just go to liquidity incentives for DeFi protocols, as an example.

That said, it’s worth seeing what applications come in.

I am an Optimism delegate with sufficient voting power and I believe this proposal is ready to move to a vote.

17

yeah the hope would be that the grant council could control for this

18

The Grants Council has opened early submissions as an Indication of Interest for this mission request here

For your application to be considered, the Mission request must pass the Token House vote on February 14th. Submissions will not be considered if a Mission Request is not approved on the 14th.

19

The vote, I agree too with it. :grinning: :fist:

20

Voted for this as I truly believe that finding additional sourced for RPGF funding is crucial to the success of Optimism as an ecosystem.