Voting Rationale Retro Funding 4
This document outlines my voting rationale and framework for RF 4.
The purpose of Retro Funding is to reward positive impact. (ie: implement impact= funding as i see it)
what I want to reward (ie: what impact means to me)
I focus on real adoption, objective impact (such as gas fees), and useful applications.
- Contributions to sequencer profitability
- Value to users: Applications where users keep coming back means they are adding value
metrics i used (ie: how i chose to measure impact)
- Gas Fees: An objective measure of network usage, computation and and value creation (50%)
- Total Transactions: Reflects growth, demand for blockspace, and user value (25%)
- Recurring Addresses: Indicates user retention and sustained value (25%)
metrics I did not like
- Trusted Recurring Users: The criteria for “trusted users” are too narrow and exclude many genuine users. We shouldn’t expect most users to meet these requirements, specially if we want mass adoption.
- Trusted Optimism Users’ Share of Total Interactions: Similar issues as above, but more problematic
- Average Trusted Daily Active Users (DAUs): Combines the “trusted user” issue with a potentially misleading “daily” metric. Many valuable applications (e.g., Optimism, Uniswap, Across) may not see daily use from most users but still provide significant impact.
- OpenRank Trusted Users: Further exacerbates the problems of the “trusted user” metric
- Logsacale: Gas Fees: This metric underrepresents the true impact. A value of 100 should be considered 10 times more impactful than 10, not just twice as impactful as the logarithmic scale suggests.
Other comments
- Open Source Multiplier: I opted not to use the Open Source multiplier for two reasons: a) @alexcutlerdoteth highlighted some issues with the OSO calculation. b) I don’t believe that simply making something open source necessarily doubles or triples its impact.
- Progress of the Experiment: I’m very encouraged by the direction of this round experiment. The shift towards using objective, concrete metrics for voting, rather than relying on “vibe checks” or popularity contests, represents a significant improvement. As a Citizen, I will continue to advocate for this approach, as I believe it’s the right path forward, as noted on my voting Rationale for RF 3.
- Transparency in Voting:I support the decision to make votes public, as it promotes accountability and fosters trust within the community.
- Lastly, I believe Citizens should be required to create and share their rationale for voting. This practice will help keep the Citizens House accountable, engaged, and aligned with the Optimistic Vision.
- Voting experience was amazing, great team work by the Foundation (@Jonas ) and Gitcoin (@owocki ) + OSO (@ccerv1)