Retro Funding 4: Deliberative process on the definition of profit

Retro Funding đź”´
15

Session 3 recap

This past week, we reconvened for the third, and final, session of our deliberative process experiment. The result of the vote following Session 2 was to deduct only Optimism grant funding from impact (retro rewards.) Accordingly, Session 3 focused on what percentage (0% - 100%) of Optimism grants should be deducted from retro rewards.

Feedback during the session surfaced the need to further breakdown the Optimism grants category into three subcategories:

  • Token House growth grants, which are passed through to end users
  • Token House builders grants, which are locked for one year
  • Foundation grants and Missions
  • *Past Retro Funding is not included as the evaluation period begins after the end of Round 3

At the end of the session, participant votes resulted in the below profit definition for Round 4:

Impact - ((10% * Token House Growth Grants) + (45% * Token House Builders Grants) + (25% * Foundation Grants)) = Award in OP

The Citizens’ House will vote to ratify this definition in the veto period running from June 20th - June 26th at 19:00 GMT. Given the timing of Round 4, if the proposed definition is not ratified, a fallback plan proposed by the Foundation will be implemented instead. The fallback plan is to only consider impact, which means making 0 deductions for profit in Round 4. This fallback plan is informed directly by the deliberative process experiment, which surfaced the level of complexity, nuance, and effort required to accurately define profit and the challenges in verifying self-reported profit data which is oftentimes not publicly disclosed. Rather than re-launch the project sign-up process and/or implement an onerous bureaucratic application process in an attempt to collect granular disclosures, we believe it is preferable to exclude consideration of imperfect profit disclosures entirely in Round 4. You can see the ratification proposal here.

In order to share context and learnings with the badgeholders that were not randomly sampled to participate in the deliberative process experiment, we share the below resources:

This Miro board was used to collect input in all three sessions.

These resources will also be linked to from the ratification vote so that badgeholders may use them as a reference.

Deliberative process experiment recap

The Foundation team found the deliberative process to be an eye opening learning experience and is excited to fully assess the results. Below is a preview of the full survey results to be shared in the fall:

  • “How, if at all, do you feel your views on the topic changed as a result of
    participating in the deliberative process?” 4.0 / 7 at the end of Session 3

  • “To what extent do you trust the opinions of other badgeholders?” 5.5 / 7, an increase from 4.5 before Session 1

Below we share a sampling of quotes from badgeholder participants about their experience:

  • “Hearing everyone’s perspective is already shifting mine.”
  • “I’m not sure it always changes peoples minds, but it does broaden their view.”
  • “All of the arguments here were really good arguments and can’t wait to discuss more.”
  • “This process helped build a lot of empathy for the design process.”
  • “I was skeptical of this process in the beginning… but it was really was useful to have conversations with badgeholders and share context, even if we don’t end up with radically different outcome than expected, the shared context was really valuable.”
  • “If governing means considering as many things as possible to arrive at the best decision, then this group governed wonderfully. I don’t guess that I agreed with all of the final decisions, but my voice was heard. And I heard others voice their thoughts. Overall, the experience was wonderful.”

We will share a full retrospective on the experiments conducted in Round 4 - Round 6 in the fall, and share findings with the community, as we evaluate their applicability in Round 7+. Participants shared valuable feedback about how future deliberative process experiments may be improved. If results indicate additional deliberative process experiments should be run, after conducting a full retrospective, a Foundation Mission Request will be issued to support an open application process for potential facilitators.

7 Likes