The Grants Council has identified the need for new Mission Requests that will significantly enhance our ability to attract and engage more developers within the Optimism ecosystem. These initiatives will align with the original intent 3A and will help us drive developer growth. There are 1.725.000 OP approved by Token House but unallocated, The Grants Council requests for the Token House to allow more mission requests during season 6
Proposal:
Rolling Mission Requests: We request that the Token House allow the Grants Council to create and submit rolling Mission Requests starting from Voting Cycle #27. This approach will enable the Grants Council to continuously propose and sponsor new Missions specifically designed to draw in more developers and utilize the unallocated budget effectively.
Utilization of Unallocated Budget: We propose using the unallocated budget from Intent 3A to support these rolling Mission Requests. These Requests will focus on initiatives that directly contribute to Intent 3A and will be subject to full approval by the Token House.
Sponsorship (same): Each Mission Request must be sponsored by a member of the Grants Council. We will maintain a running sponsorship thread on the forum to ensure transparency and engagement. Submission Deadlines: Submissions will close on the last Monday of each Review Period. The approval or sponsorship of one Grants Council member will be required to move a Mission Request forward. Voting: Sponsored and approved Mission Requests will be sent to the Token House for a vote in the following Thursday’s Voting Period.
Implementation Timeline:
Cycle 26: Token house approves rolling Mission Requests to be submitted.
Cycle 27 to 29: Proposal for rolling Mission Requests to be submitted and voted following the Cycle structure.
I am one of the Synthetix Ambassadors, and I am an Optimism delegate [Delegate Commitments - #65 by mastermojo ] with sufficient voting power, and I believe this proposal is ready to move to a vote.
The SEED Latam delegation, as we have communicated here, with @Joxes being an Optimism delegate with sufficient voting power we believe this proposal is ready to move towards a vote.
To avoid delegate overload / asking delegates to evaluate individual Mission Requests on an ongoing basis (which delegates have given negative feedback on in the past), I would suggest making this an optimistic approval. Optimistic approval means a proposal will be assumed to pass unless Token House delegates reject it (in this case the proposal would allow for rejection of individual Mission Requests.) This voting mechanism allows entrusted decision makers to more efficiently make decisions, while keeping them accountable to the Token House by allowing the Token House to block a specific decision. It reduces delegate overhead by not asking delegates to assess each decision, but rather only object to the decisions they strongly disagree with. This is the model the Code of Conduct Council uses for enforcement actions (example here.)
In practice, these mean if any of the proposed Mission Requests receive >12% of the votable supply in no votes, that Mission Request would not be approved. Any Mission Request not receiving >12% ‘no’ votes would pass.
GM @lavande! I have a comment about this, typically, Optimistic proposals work well with a summary of decisions from a Council (like the Code of Conduct Council) but I recall it being an issue if you disagree with one of the decisions rather than the entire package. I believe that if it allowed for the rejection of individual MRs (which is very much needed) it wouldn’t be too different from approval voting as delegates would still need to review each MR to decide whether to reject it.
Imo, I think it would be better to maintain one structure for approving the mission and a separate one for approving the applications, I believe this approach could help prevent potential issues down the line.
I like this idea as it reduces the burden on delegates. Instead of having to read and assess every mission request to vote for or against, delegates only need to read the potentially problematic mission requests flagged by the community (if there are any) and decide if they want to vote against it.
Thanks for raising this point as I don’t think some of the nuance is well understood.
The main difference with optimistic voting is that it allows delegates to fully delegate decision making to the Grants Council, if they choose (if I fully trust the Grants Council to make decisions about individual Mission Requests, there is no need for me to vote on the optimistic approval.) There is also a more nuanced difference between actively approving a Mission Request (giving my active sign-off) versus simply not vetoing it (I don’t believe this proposal is problematic enough to actively block it.)