Sir, the main point of the reasoning here is that if you are part of the Top 100, you have ALREADY been rewarded for your voting activity (your DAO already received 4000 OP for Season 5 - Top 100 delegate with >70% voting participation in Season 5 (abstain votes count towards participation). .
But If we continue to reward exclusively the Top 100 for voting, it leads to ossification.
I’m not sure I understand the meaning of your caption here; do you imply that my intentions are not in the interest of the Collective?
I think you are not understanding the point that @latruite.eth makes.
Delegates within the Top 100 are ALREADY rewarded at the end of each season according to their participation. But that does not happen with the 101-N delegates.
So the proposal is to include some delegates within the latter set based on certain criteria (who did not receive rewards even though they are active participants), to incentivize them and recognize their committed participation in the Collective.
GM @ZEFIRIUM!
You can include additional info or artifacts like repositories, contracts, etc., when creating a project, but they’re not required to submit for R6. For example, when I was preparing the application for the ACC S5, I selected “This project doesn’t have a code repo.” It will depend on your project
GM! Please note that this is my personal opinion and does not reflect the views of GovNerds or any other structure where I serve.
I believe it’s challenging to modify the eligibility criteria for Retro Funding 6 at this stage. However, Retro Rewards for Season 6 have not yet been distributed, so I think this could serve as valuable feedback for this season. I agree that it’s important to incentivize delegates who are highly active and engaged, but whose voting power doesn’t place them in the Top 100. I suggest including a recommendation on how to identify these delegates or outlining the criteria you would propose.
As Brichis mentioned, I think we can provide feedback for the Retro Rewards to be held in Season 6.
I just wanted to share my own thoughts to give an idea:
The ITU Blockchain (@itublockchain), which I was previously involved with, went through quite tough processes when trying to enter the Top 100. If it weren’t for being a large community, it might not have made it into the Top 100. Therefore, instead of focusing on the Top 100, there should be a way to reward people who have spent a certain period as a specific delegator and have actively participated. Of course, this could make it susceptible to sybil attacks. Perhaps rewards could be distributed through a combination of a minimum delegated OP threshold and activity.
Thank you for the feedback. I’m not asking for a change in the eligibility rules, but rather clarification. The statement that governance participation is “rewarded separately” gives the impression that all delegates are rewarded, which is not true for those outside the Top 100.
This is why I thought Retro Funding was a great occasion to encourage the voting activity of serious delegates ranked 101-300. I’m not a Dune expert, but I can see 9 particularly active delegates in this range who meet that threshold (spoiler alert: obviously myself included ), with over 80% participation (during S5&6), yet unrewarded.
However, if the Foundation can confirm that such an application would indeed fall outside the scope of eligibility and that they do not see the governance activities of delegates outside the Top 100 (e.g., during Season 5) as deserving or needing reward through either Retro Governance Participation Rewards or RetroFunding rounds, then I will gladly drop this idea.
My goal is not to waste anyone’s time or to appear as if I’m begging for rewards. I’m fine with contributing to the Collective for free, but I would prefer not to give the impression that I’m being rewarded for something when that’s clearly not the case.
My name is Julian and I work on the OP Foundation Gov team. I am able to confirm that based on our eligibility criteria, an application based on voting participation would indeed fall outside the scope of this Retro Funding Round.
We’re happy to say that RetroPGF Hub is supported with Retro Funding 6 now as promised! You can explore any project details that apply for this round on this!
By the way, where does this number come from? Just looking at the Round3 overview and it shows almost 5million for collective governance. Source: Agora - Optimism's RetroPGF Round 3 Summary
I am in favor of the suggestions made by @latruite.eth and @itublockchain and would like to add a +1 to the feedback they have given. I urge the collective to include 101-N delegates with high participation in the RPGF pool for this round.
