RetroPGF 3: Voting badge distribution

Hey all!

I also want to take this opportunity to announce here that I have distributed my additional voting badge to @Lucya_eth from Ethereum Honduras!

Please, read my motivation in our SEED Latam Delegate Communication Thread, but here is a fragment on this:


This is an interesting choice considering Lucy has spent a total of 12 minutes engaging in the Optimism forum and created close to no value for the Optimism ecosystem. Ethereum Honduras as a whole has done close to zero work relating to Optimism as seen by quick searches on twitter example 1 and example 2.

Also interesting mention of the QF rounds hosted by Ethereum Honduras. Most notably the recent round hosted on Arbitrum. The projects that participated in that round attest to the lack of results/ impact/ adoption created by this community. Just as the projects that participated in the previous round, I expect close to zero impact from these as well. In my opinion these QF rounds served as nothing more than a mechanism to distribute grant funding amongst themselves and positioning for usage of buzz words in moments like this.

Would you be able to identify any results relating to Optimism that I am not seeing?

How is this a better choice than other people in LatAm, even within the EthKipu ecosystem that have been doing excellent work to promote the collective?

Being familiar with the Honduras ecosystem, I can personally tell you that very little has been done to create real adoption despite having received lots of grant funding for many years. Most of the “meet ups” during 2012 were the same 10-15 people and created very little tangible results.

It’s unfortunate to see LatAm leadership mimic the same issues that have kept the region behind for so long. Specifically cronyism. This creates inefficiencies, poor performance, complacency, lack of meritocracy, social inequalities, unethical behavior, limited opportunities, and weakening of institutions/ organizations among many other issues.

It wouldn’t surprise me if these votes are kept private because the majority are already committed to projects in the EthKipu and SeedLatAm ecosystems. It looks like the LatAm Optimism ecosystem is redefining impact = profit with cronyism = profit.


Im totally agree friend, I think that decision comes from nowhere for the people that are outside they’re ecosystem. I understand that we can just jump to the discord and hear for the meetings that already they are having, but with this proofs of no impact it’s difficult to understand what’s happening and how this it’s not intended to be more from the same concentrated value for the governance and social layer.
As far as I know, there are a lot of communities in Honduras and also people that it’s working hard to benefit for the good of the people and their communities and I vibe with the sentiment that this nominations must be tangible and traceable.
If we are going to just pick someone that it’s cool or hasn’t any history, we are just repeating the faults of our previous history.
Im sure that we are not being able to decide what it’s going to happen but it’s better if we have a little more information to understand. Also @Gonna.eth published some guides and how to know the proposers for badges and they didn’t step in to present their badge candidates to at least know about them Signaling intention to become a Badgeholder
I hope this goes well and for the good of the builders of public goods.


I would also like to raise awareness surrounding @JoaoKury having less than 20 minutes of read time on the forum here & joining three days ago with zero participation prior to this.

There has been close to zero value added to the ecosystem by this individual.

Are we seeing seed latam attempt an early sybil attack on rpgf round 3 ?

@Carlosjmelgar brings up many great points in the decision making process from what has been witnessed so far here in the forums.

As you can see here there is no mention about Optimism network on the feed of the Modular Crypto page other than a recent post about this nomination. Showing little to no impact when spreading awareness about the optimism ecosystem.

Besides having less than 1000 followers the account was created in May of 2023 this year which does not help display any sort of track record related to impact longer than a few months on social media.

I wanted to double check that is the case and so I searched the term “optimism” and see less than a handful of posts related to the topic.

In fact there are zero posts created first hand by the Crypto Modular account about the Optimism ecosystem and I see anything that is related to the network is just reposted from another page.

The alignment of this individual with the Optimism ecosystem seems off to me.

Showing very low effort when it comes to sharing the vision of the optimism collective with others doesn’t make this the only red flag :triangular_flag_on_post: that I found.

There is ZERO Onchain history about voting :ballot_box: on proposals on OP from this team or individual that can easily be found on their accounts. Showing a track record of participation in the ecosystem of optimism governance would help significantly to understand the reasoning behind the selection of this badge holder. It’s tough to tell what someone’s values are when you can’t see their voting history within the ecosystem. Are they an important delegate that holds a significant amount of voting :ballot_box: power in the form of OP token ?

Please :pray: explain why this decision was made.

Another way to create impact in a transparent manner is by showing your support to the optimism network by directly contributing to the Retropgf.eth address.

If there is some significant impact being made by the individual onchain there is no denying that evidence. Until there is some actual proof of impact being made in the OP ecosystem I would hold off on selecting your peers over those who have gained the much needed experience in the ecosystem that will help guide the rest of the collective in the right direction.


I’ve been trying to raise awareness around this concern for months. It seems that SEED Latam and/or ETH Kipu (same founders and social circle) have also been associating themselves with forkdao, an infamous coup group that has been gaming grants across the ecosystem, specializing in staging their presence and appropriating from the impact of other projects. Forkdao has even got away with submitting two different (#1, #2) Gitcoin Grants in R18 for exactly the same project.
Forkdao seems to help out SEED/Kipu a ton when it comes to staging their impact, as you can find many of the members inflating their numbers on social media. I’m very glad more people are looking into this, since these groups won’t hesitate in using their political influence to bully people that don’t align with their interests, even in this forum.


Hey there I am here too, I am an Optimistic Nerd currently interesting with on-chain data analysis, I think; if you know me, you know that I can handle this responsibility, if you dont know me a post in here wont be enough to convince you

contact information
dc: arabianhorses
twitter: oguzthestoic
telegram: oguzthestoic


Thank you for bringing this into the lime light. Would be interesting to have “ImpactWatch”, a way to create systems that monitor some of these things and groups on how they are really making impact or if it’s just a publicity stunt!


@CryptoChica I would really appreciate you keep this conversation in the gov forum instead of replying in work groups with my employer as an attempt to use your position to sabotage my employment, as well as contacting other members of my local community to involve them in this matter. This is yet another example of the foul play at hand on your behalf.


Thanks for sharing. I am not surprised that this is happening with the large amount of funding that is allocated for RPFG round 3.

It’s time to stay sharp & perform due diligence as members of the token house to keep the citizens informed on topics that may affect the eligibility of a project.

I clearly see it as a way to game the system within full view of the public. Although it is easy to detect cases such as these I hope :crossed_fingers: that badge holders will be honest participants who get to decide who has made the most impact without any interference in the rest of the program by following best practices without any outside influences or back channel coordination efforts to prevent others from getting the funding they deserve.


It’s fascinating to see how some individuals are defining citizenship as active participation in the collective or forum. However, opinions on who qualifies as a citizen vary widely. There are numerous factors to consider beyond governance involvement, and I’m even inclined to suggest nominating individuals who aren’t exclusively focused on token governance (my nomination). The Citizen house may serve as a balancing force for the Token house in the future.

In my view, the more diverse the background of nominated Citizens, the better. This diversity can help broaden the Optimism Vision community and foster a more inclusive atmosphere.

I’m concerned about the prevailing negative tone in many of our debates. I believe that some of these discussions would be more appropriate in dedicated “Delegate threads.”

Delegates are accountable to their constituents, which means they should answer to the token holders who have delegated their authority to them. Instead of demanding answers as if delegates were employees, we should remember that there’s a reporting process in place. If there are allegations of misconduct or misalignment of interests, proof can be submitted, and the token house can vote on the matter. If not, let’s strive to maintain a meaningful and positive conversation on the forum.

Coming from a Latin American country, I aspire to embody the change I wish to see among my regional peers. It’s essential for us to uphold civility and professionalism to the highest standards.


Agreed :+1: it’s a shame that this is an issue within the OP ecosystem. More sybil prevention is needed like Gitcoin who has been emphasizing this in the most recent round of QF funding.

The transparency behind the ecosystem of the OP Gov & badge holders is very confusing and unclear to others who are joining the ecosystem.

We had a meeting with Green Pill Germany and associates today who has conveyed this message to us while reaching out about information related to grant applications in preparation for their teams efforts to build on Optimism in the future.

The ability to understand who to communicate within the governance for guidance prior to applying to the intake filter seems to be a barrier of entry for new members of the community. This also extends to the core & foundation levels of communication with projects seeking out the co grants.

It’s amazing to see the ecosystem grow but the chain of command is not well laid out enough for entry level participants to communicate with desired staff members regarding their needs. Opening up the channels of communication between the Optimism team that is in charge of the discord, governance, and foundation will only improve the alignment of all teams working to build a better relationship with others and understanding for new delegates who aspire to become badge holders.

I would like to suggest a dashboard that is specifically tailored towards this purpose.

At least that would help relieve the grants council when there is an influx of new applications being submitted. I know how hard the grants council members work and they don’t have the time to sort out other misconduct or monitor governance forums.

Let’s keep building the ecosystem with amazing creators from all across the globe. Latam has shown an incredible amount of growth over the past year & we work together with locals in Peru :peru: who are very excited to be a part of the Optimism community.


I cant be more agree with this. Forums are not something that the token holders or users really know or use. I’m here for the knowledge and the coordination proceses that happens here. It’s like a big playground, and anyone has different skills that can be very helpful for the growth of a community. But it’s important for the external users to understand how the decision are made or how can we help.
If this is my first day as an inspector I’d love to see that all the processes are easy to find and read. However this just makes me think it’s all about interpretation and entropy, and I’m pretty sure that this is not the case.
Thank you for the time and effort to explain and moderate this con.


Thank you for surfacing these points.

This is a serious concern and it does feel like the cronyism goes beyond the optimism ecosystem.


For the reasons of order, we have opened this topic so that we can discuss without spamming in a thread that has another purpose. We invite those involved and all those who wish to follow up on this topic to comment on this post.

We believe that this is an interesting topic that can bring clarity and quality to the future development and organization of the RPGF3.

@Carlosjmelgar @chuygarcia.eth @FractalVisions @jengajojo @CryptoReuMD


This reply contains quotes from this thread.

@seedlatam it’s alarming how dishonest your organization is being. There are a number of serious allegations you’re not addressing.

Again, you’re not disclosing all the information. For example, @0xLocoPacha is a designer for SEED Latam and ETH Kipu, but also for L2 en Español and ETH LATAM, organizations that have also received funding. Particulartly you’re omitting members like @0xjean, who is part of SEED Latam and a founding member of forkdao:

This is from your Notion page where @seedlatam calls Jean a “hardcore member”.

This is from forkdao’s forum, where it is stated that Jean is a core team member of forkdao.

Jean plays an interesting role in the whole scheme, since he’s the head of communications for Kleros. Actually, many SEED Latam members like @candufaz have undisclosed roles in Kleros or have received funding from them in the past, yet Kleros isn’t mentioned anywhere in SEED Latam’s team roles for unknown reasons, but most likely political influence being it.

Jean has also high on-chain activity with @CryptoChica and Sobol, one of forkdao’s biggest bullies and most active members:

Jean even calls himself “CryptoChica’s brother” in the SEED Latam community:

I think right now is a good opportunity to address this matter, since there’s a lot that goes on with the wide interpretation this tends to have. ETH Kipu is in no way a representative of other Ethereum communities accross the region, yet this is what Kipu’s Notion and grant applications suggest:

The ambiguity around this interpretation is something that has gotten ETH Kipu A LOT of grants. The facts, however, tell us that a clear majority of their contributors come from Argentina. It’s stated that ETH Kipu is a private organization ran by a group of its founders, yet they suggest the exact opposite in their Notion and in every grant or retroactive funding application they fill. No other Ethereum community across Latam has any inquiry in ETH Kipu’s treasury, there are no transparency mechanisms and a handful of people control all funds, yet a lot of money is drawn in using our names and work suggestively.

It’s concerning how many doors @CryptoChica opens with the title of ETH Kipu co-founder, but on paper ETH Kipu identifies as an organization with no leaders. Kipu tends to appeal to crowds in ways like this, but the sad truth is that a handful of people from very few Latam countries control their multisig:

I think that in general @Cryptochica has many undisclosed interests that would make her ethics highly questionable at this point.

It seems that ETH Kipu and SEED Latam operate more like a political party, and less like communities that truly would foster the values we share. After months of observing these alarming conducts with continous colonizing patterns, I have no doubt in my mind that these badgeholders will be no different than traditional appointed politicians.

I urge the Optimism Collective to not foresee these attitudes, as taking measures against it would undoubtly strengthen the RPGF rounds to come.

I would like to close with what seems to be a completely unaware direct quote of my biggest concern:

I come from a community that would rather relate to this:


As SEED Latam, we have always been willing to be clear and detailed in our responses, and open to questions and feedback.

Throughout our history on the forum, we had never been involved in controversy, either through action or omission. We have always been interested in having our contributions to the community recognized, and we have been measured in our interactions because we believe it is the appropriate approach for a healthy governance forum.

We are posting this with clarifications from all the members involved in good faith and with a positive attitude.

However, we believe that these types of comments have crossed the forum’s boundaries and are touching on personal matters. Furthermore, the information presented consists of value judgments that distort public information that we ourselves have crafted with the intention of emphasizing transparency.

We believe that several points of the code of conduct are being violated.

This began when two members of SEED Latam, in good faith, wanted to personally announce their nominees for RPGF3 badgeholders (Even though this is not mandatory), and this turned into an attack to differents individuals and organizations.

We request support from @lavande


Guys, all of you, please follow the Code of conduct procedure.

Type of violation:

  • Standard: To report a standard Code of Conduct violation, use this reporting form.

Lavande and Foundation are at the helm of the collective, on the cusp of launching RetroPGF 3 and nearing the conclusion of Season 4, all while juggling numerous responsibilities. Despite their hectic schedules, they’ve dedicated time to lay out the guidelines and procedures for addressing violations of our code of conduct, sparing themselves from being constantly tagged in violation-related issues. Let’s strive for self-vigilance and proactive problem-solving.


I love to see governance as round table and not as a war zone.
Why do I say this ? because this is not about personal impact or misleading, it’s about fairnesses and good vibes for the ecosystem, something that we are trying to bring here.
I’ll read every post and I’m pretty sure that all the members that are actually expressing their feelings and ideas are great people with great hearts and goods, im a personal perpetual learner of what @Joxes it’s making, inside the L2 and Ethereum ethos, and the more that I read, and all the people that’s it’s around this conversation, it’s committed to the benefits of the Optimism experiment and quality control.
What we are looking over here since February of 23’ it’s to embrace transparency and agreement between all the community that we are building.
I work in a lot of projects that are related to ethics and research and I’m sure of something: We need to prove that we have skin in the game and near zero or zero conflict of interest.
Everything that it’s being post here it’s not about off chain reputation or massive twitter followers or blog posts, it’s about the impact that we are going to have with every decision that we are making, that we pursue.
Permissionless it’s a word that define us and this is what we can breath in this forum, we all care of what’s happening and it’s better if we disclose everything since it’s easier for us to trace any movements and behavior on chain, in we do it’s going go be easier and leave any trouble far away of our vibes and keep any thoughts trust in the truth of numbers.
If we start applying the Optimism endeavor, all of this post are not intended to harm, it’s like a fraud proof that needs to be corrected and all the effort and cost that we need to invest it’s to secure the allocation of the governance heart beat.
It’s easy to govern numbers than people, but I’m sure that we are learning about the protocol itself with the law of chains, if any badge holders it’s intended to be up here, it’s better if we know what they are building and how this benefits all the optimism collective and no just one organization, even that has the best intentions.
Something that we sign every day its if we received funding previously and this could be very important, because if we are just asking for more and we are not satisfying all the need of our community, we are just using this populism to our own benefit and not the real adoption and solutions.
I’m a personally believer that if I need to hide something it’s because it’s embarrassing or it’s not good, but this is a personal fight that we have to make, but it t goes public and discovered it’s one of the coordination failures the concentrated liquidity paradox or in this case the governance centralization of projects.
We can’t cite here other forums that are having the same conversation and it would be great if we learn and write about governance concentration and how this could be harmful for the coordination.
We are in the same boat, why do we need to go east if we are headed west?


Hi everyone - to clarify a few points:

Round 3 badgeholder distribution:

Beyond adherence to the below policy, badgeholders do not need to justify their nominations. It is not the responsibility of the badeholder, nor the nominee, to explain if or how they meet the criteria suggested by the Foundation.

Badgeholders must not extend badges to co-workers, as defined:

  1. As a round 2 badgeholder, you’re not allowed to distribute your voting badge to a co-worker with whom you work on your primary project. “Primary” is defined as a project to which you dedicate >25% of working hours or derive >25% of your compensation.
  2. This rule is established to counteract the concentration of voting badges among the members of a small number of projects.

Citizenship criteria:
This is not the long term badgeholder distribution mechanism. Citizenship criteria will be set and approved via governance in the future. If you disagree with the criteria suggested by the Foundation and/or would like to suggest alternative criteria for determining Citizenship in the future, please leave constructive feedback here.

Engagement in governance conversations:
The Forum and/or other governance platforms are not a place to settle personal scores or make personal attacks. Governance conversations are subject to the Code of Conduct and the Forum is covered by the Rules of Engagement. Code of Conduct reports related to this issue have been filed and will be processed during the upcoming Reflection Period as Season 4 ends in four days.

Most importantly, I will echo Gonna’s comment above and retierate that we are on the cusp of launching RetroPGF Round 3 and Season 5 of Optimism Governance, which will include the Citizens’ House. These are huge milestones that will bring us closer to our Intents, the Superchain, and the Optimstic Vision.

We need everyone to stay focused on what we are building towards as a Collective; we can only accomplish what we need to in the next six months by working together. Remember, Intent #4 is Governance Accessibility. The conversation above currently works against that Intent and should be reframed to increase, rather than reduce, the accessibility of Optimism governance.


Hi, is still possible to apply to be a badgeholder for the third round? I’m part of Blobscan a team that received a grant during second retro round.