Season 2 Feedback Thread

🏛 Token House Governance
,
19
  1. Proposal Recommendation
  • I totally understand frustration from a project side on getting No as a recommendation but wrapping a proposal recommendation as a possible attack on the Protocol and using that to down play other committee is not sustainable. This might push some community member away.
  • When reviewing a proposal I am looking at the template provided to us by OP Foundation, it has different statement; when a protocol is unique I do give it few extra points but overall what is mentioned in the proposal has more value, for me its an non-binding agreement. I am not suggesting your protocol is not good or it does not have value, my suggestion is to improve few things, I am asking for additional information, this gonna only make proposal better, making a small change could make the overall process better. But there two instances where a “No” recommendation blew out of proportion.

  1. I would like to echo concern related to overall lack of engagement as others have mentioned above.

  2. Fund accountability and lack of communication from prior grant receiver
    Apart from Uni, Rubicon, Pooltogether no one is sharing any detail related to use of fund and its impact on the ecosystem. I dont expect OP Foundation to poke every protocol but may be from community side we can put some pressure on them, we have many delegate with huge online presence. All we need is little push. To my surprise when I contacted Slingshot for details on Phase 0 fund usage they were kind enough to provide a detailed report (Its not dune but its something)while Stargate didnt even responded to direct DM or twit. We did approve those fund, this is the least we could do.

Fund accountability

  • I dont believe we are spending too much or too fast, I think we are doing the distribution in dark without proper data. Phase 0 was inauguration ceremony, we did bulk approval. At that, There were 7 proposal I would have voted against and now when I look back and read those proposal, this number has moved to 13 (which also show that we have made progress in auditing proposal). So, using old metric to evaluate a proposal might hurt us in long run.

  • I would like to iterate again, and last community call should be wake up call for all of us, we need data on overall fund use. Here, I dont trust any project as they could possibly inflate the number, I am advocating that this report should either come from Foundation or from an independent third party.

  • Usually protocol as responsive to feedback and willing to adjust the token requested but one think I am reading frequently is that “we believe X amount of $OP is justifiable because a similar project in Phase 0 was approved” or in other word, when foundation can approve a similar grant why you are asking to reduce it. ? I can answer to this question if we have data.

  • Looking at upcoming go-live date of other L2s, we need to be more competitive and this could help us that.

What we are hearing now is the echo of our bulk approvals,I wouldn’t call it a mistake, but I am afraid, it will be if we go one more season without accountability of fund. (Here I am talking about both grant, Gov + Foundation)

  1. Lack of context

  • This is quite important, at least to me, protocols are comparing their proposal from past proposal, like mentioned above, without knowing the context.

  • We are doing all this in an iteration, rushing to make chance mid-cycle makes no sense at all. New community members are not aware of this and we should help them understand the process but in this season I saw that existing community member were rushing to make changes mid-cycle.

  • Some delegates are engaged with other task and does not have enough bandwidth to read everything, that was one reason to form the committee, and if you spam the complete channel on daily basis then either it will create an illusion that what you are advocating for is a common opinion hence creating a echo-chamber and delegates will end of making an un-informed decision.

  1. Community Management
  • We need some rules related to community management, there should be a process to ban/deactivate someone’s account for a time period( on some criteria).
  • Community code of conduct is needed.
  • I would like to see a process to relieve a delegate from its duties, my suggestion would be to this when Citizen house is active as i would like to see them involved when someone invoke delegate removal process.

Those are my personal opinion, as a committee we will also share a committee feedback summary.

5 Likes