Season 4 Feedback Thread

I’d like to preface this feedback by highlighting that it’s driven by a sincere intention to contribute constructively. I’m ready to roll up my sleeves and do my part! :smiling_face: With that in mind, let’s dive in. The concept of Intents and Missions struck me as quite inspiring; it undoubtedly steered our efforts in a clear direction.

Nonetheless, I must mention that the overall process seemed quite convoluted. The path to comprehending the requirements and adhering to the deadlines often required navigating a maze of forum posts. Understanding the nuances between the Foundation Missions (RFPs), Proposed Missions (Intent 1, 3 and 4), and Intent 2: which includes Builders Grants, Growth Grants, and RFGs, proved to be somewhat elusive at times.

Every category brought its unique set of procedures, rules, deadlines, and even communication platforms—spanning Github, Forum, Discord, Google Meets, and Charmverse. For individual developers or small teams, who may lack sufficient time or resources, this could be quite overwhelming. Upon reflection, I believe that a comparison chart could have offered significant utility. In general, a more streamlined arrangement of these elements could result in a more user-friendly experience. An interactive quiz to identify the best-suited funding path for each project could be a thoughtful addition.

While I understand that this was an experimental venture, I see room for improving the promotional efforts. A newsletter or a Medium post to announce significant updates could enhance the reach and effectiveness of our communication.

My commendation goes to the governance team and Grants Council for their unwavering commitment, patiently addressing every query. I enjoyed the Grants Council Office Hours, and would advocate for a similar approach for Proposed & Foundation Missions.

The Optimism Alliance forming workshop was nothing short of excellent and certainly merits a rerun. Additionally, the idea of delegates hosting pitching sessions was appealing. However, there’s scope for enhancing delegate engagement. Throughout the calls, delegate participation was relatively sparse.

The mission’s procedural framework, encompassing delegate approval to voting, functioned smoothly. Nevertheless, I would appreciate seeing more delegate involvement. Could we potentially devise ways to spur their participation in such processes? Of all individuals with more than 0.25% delegation, merely 10-15 delegates were present, some of whom were from the Grants Council, tasked with reviewing over a hundred projects—a number that’s destined to increase.

Looking ahead, it could be advantageous to have a dedicated person or team to shepherd projects throughout the entire process. This person or team should possess a comprehensive understanding of all funding avenues within Optimism and be able to tailor their advice to the specific needs of each project.

We might consider showcasing successful examples as a way to set clear expectations for what we’re looking to achieve.

In conclusion, being part of this experimental initiative was a genuinely enriching experience. My deepest congratulations to the governance team, Grants Council, and everyone else who contributed to making this initiative a success. :raised_hands:

Edit: Although I understand why, I would like to add that the one year lock-in is a big constraint for those who want to build in Optimism, I think we could have had less problems with the amounts in the budgets if there could have been an upfront payment. It is very difficult to build something without money for the operation, especially for small work teams, projects that are just starting or in general public goods projects that are not guaranteed how to pay for a year of operation.