Season 4 Feedback Thread

[0xJommi]

Its a common occurance, but also commonly referred to as one of the most misfunctioning parts of the bureaucracy in the european funding system.

[Pr0]

You definately can, do you know anywhere that sell OP options on a 1y expiry? As for borrows thats kinda the core arguement here because they’re explicitly not approved with the ToC. Futures youd be eaten by fees for perps, there are no 1y fixed, and you need to put up the collateral aswell from somewhere else, which becomes a probably loan on the allocation > collateral on the futures, which again breaks the ToC. So unless you have the upfront capital and can find a 1y future/option you’re kinad screwed

[0xJommi]

Oh wow, just saw the post on the discord.

using financial instruments derived from your grant are effective sales (the definition of which we’ve just added to the grant policies

Thats crazy - and impossible to even attempt to oversee.

[Griff]

The services GM offers is usually something teams pay for, yes.

In the case of Praise or Pairwise however, those are in house projects that we are building, we are apply for grants to continue the work.

In the case of the other proposals, Giveth DAO and General Magic will pay some people’s salaries while they are building these projects.

[lee0007]

Linking feedback on the S4 Collective Intent voting process for reference

Agora Updates & Feedback thread

Thanks for opening this line of conversation @Oxytocin Would we need to edit if we had more flexible off chain signalling mechanisms in advance of on chain commit? Imo there are multiple positive benefits to introducing off-chain mechnisms including process improvements diversity of perspective accessibility as @lefterisjp mentions here Current approval voting is a process where Meeting quorum threshold - currently as few as three (3) delegates - removes the requirement for simple majori…

[abraham]

Hey @jackanorak, providing some context here:

@jackanorak

Let’s take the Optimistic Vision to LATAM with Espacio Cripto (45.6k OP) (Alliance: Espacio Cripto) (Bankless affiliates)

Espacio Cripto is not a Bankles affiliate (not sure what you mean by Bankless affiliate). We’re an independent community that started in 2020 and has grown since. Some of Espacio Cripto’s community members started Nacion Bankless (Bankless in Spanish), that’s the natural flow of builders contributing to other communities. We don’t have any bond or compensation with Bankless.

On a second point about the relationship between GM and Espacio Cripto, @Griff is on point in describing @brichis’ role in Espacio Cripto.

@Griff

As far as Espacio Cripto or HER LATAM alliances that Brichis supported… Yes, Brichis works for GM, but she is supporting these Latam projects on her own time, and is not being paid by GM to support them, nor does GM have any contracts or expectations in any way with those teams. GM also doesn’t have any insight into the deals she has made with these orgs. I am sure, though, that Brichis’ knowledge on the complicated grant program this quarter would be very helpful to any team. It was very difficult to navigate.

@brichis started her journey in the crypto space last year. She quickly gained context on the industry, and before any role she played at GM, she was one of the mods of Espacio Cripto’s community. Being a mod ensures that our Telegram community constantly aligns with our values of win and help win, staying focused on building and avoiding grifters. @brichis has no monetary compensation from Espacio Cripto, and Espacio Cripto does not have any contracts or expectations with GM, as @Griff mentions.

Again @Griff is quite on point on @brichis’s relevance to our application. I learned about season 4 thanks to @brichis; it was really hard to navigate what we needed to do as Espacio Cripto to participate in this process. Brichis dedicated several hours to having 1:1 calls with me to explain what we needed to do to apply. Without her guidance on the unclear process, we might not have applied.

I’d like to note that the first time I grasped the relevance of public goods was during @Griff’s talk at The DAOist Mexico City in February 2022, an event that Espacio Cripto helped to execute. From that moment on, we started thinking about how to deliver real public goods to the LATAM community.

We’re really happy with how things have evolved and I understand how things might look tangled without the whole context we have. Thank you for bringing these points up @jackanorak; having these conversations make our work more transparent and visible.

I’m happy to provide any more context or information that Optimism needs to keep delivering the Optimistic Vision.

Let’s build.

[Joxes]

From our last post on our communication thread

SEED Latam - Delegate Communication Thread

Hi community! In this new post we’re going to cover our lastest work in the governance, mainly regarding to the cycle-13. 1) 14th Governance Call As usual in our Discord channel we held the lastest governance call (July 11) to discuss the voting cycle 13. This voting cycle was concerned to vote on mission proposals. Participants: ~50 attendees (46 collected) Duration: 3hs 26min. a) Preparation For this cycle, we continue our work as a team analyzing the 31 proposals approve…

Quoting:

@Joxes

2) Season 4: first retrospective

The introduction of the missions introduced a new mechanism for paid contributions by governance in a work fist and get paid manner. The introduction of the missions introduced a new mechanism for paid contributions by governance in a pay-for-work manner. For this, four different verticals were decided, called “intents” to address specific needs expressed by the Collective or completely proposed by third-party teams. Here we want to express a condensation of thoughts that arose during cycle 13 that is orthogonal to different proposals or in the processes in which this opportunity was carried out.

I) Intent 3: very impact-dependent, less about the actual product

Due to the nature of this scope of the intent and resulting proposals, we saw how difficult is to evaluate the final product and the effectiveness of the features in fulfilling their “functionalities”, being anchored to the wait for results by KPIs to check even the usefulness of the mission. It means that it is possible that the objectives are met but even so the funding has been misallocated.

II) Intent 3: too much for users, not enough for Builders

There is a saturation of proposals related to education in terms of expected audiences, which potentially overlap in the regular case (not many new users are benefited from these initiatives but they do have a wide reach among the existing community). Particular case of Latam, with 5 proposals, 4 of them with clear connections to each other, and therefore, a similar starting point before reaching a wider public.

On the other hand, there is a lack of initiatives to educate new developers as future builders of real applications in Optimism. This is a pity and an unwanted situation since it means a lack of investment in real use cases for Optimism, the only way to stay competitive and grow steadily in number of users and activity. Intent 2 still contributing in this aspect with the builder sub-committee, but introducing new developers from zero to hero still being great to have.

III) Intent 3 & 4: effectiveness density vs time, battling obsolescence

One of the most frequently asked aspects is the commitment to prolong the final product once the mission period has ended. While this condition applies to all intents, the evolving nature of governance and change in its design and ecosystem is even more noticeable in educational materials and content. On several occasions there is no evidenced commitment to address this fact (and it is natural that this is the case), but it should be taken into account to maximize the benefits of missions with more explicitly aligned collaborators in the long term and not just waiting for the next retroPGF.

IV) All intents: need for OP distribution doesn’t imply suboptimal allocations

From the last voting cycle with the ratification of the budget, the distribution of the OP token didn’t reach the one stipulated for the Foundation budget. We understand the importance in the circulation of the OP token to make it more liquid, distributed and usable by more users for governance purposes, however, among delegates we should take care of the treasure, no matter the amount, from any possible grant farming intention, lessons learned of the first and second seasons of Optimism in 2022.

V) Reflection: how to increase the efforts on uniqueness

Ultimately, governance coordination is looking for ways to encourage differentiation between proposals and building real products. Governance needs to provide a better incentive base to avoid incentive gaming between Missions and retroPGF: more review time, incentivized delegates to curation tasks from earlier stages.

[Joxes]

Related to this thread, we have posted the following analysis:

@Joxes

We have posted an analysis about the delegate participation, current workload and incentives, highlighting the need for better mechanisms to increase the number of participants and diversity of voices.

A shared effort by our team @AxlVaz, @CryptoChica, @Jadmat.Eth-DefiLatam, Joxes and @Netrim.

@Joxes

Summary

Optimism Token House has been active for 1 year going through five seasons facing numerous changes throughout each season pursuing the best interest for the Optimism ecosystem. From the season 0 to 4, Optimism governance has established different processes for managing governance funds, protocol updates and other decisions to which delegates have had to adapt, even making the process more complex to guarantee; for example, the correct allocation of funds, with the introduction of committees, and later, the Grant Council. Over time, it has been possible to demonstrate the heavy workload that the delegates have had to face. For season 4, less than half of the delegates (>0.25%) had an active participation during the feedback and approval to vote process. In order to align the work of delegates and broaden the desire to participate, we believe that the path is to improve the incentive system aka rewards, as a way to increase the quality and fulfillment of the final goals.

[OPUser]

One suggestion, now that we are voting onchain, I would like to refund transaction cost of all address participated in past season.

Giving an SBT would also be another option, rational being voters apathy and encouragement to participate in onchian voting.

[Joxes]

Hey, we want to provide some final thoughts on season 4 to take into account for the next and future seasons.

First, reiterate that the way the missions were planned presented a very concentrated workload in the evaluation period and surely these processes open to deliberation by delegates will require adjustment to include the greatest number of opinions possible; this is a widespread problem that is increasingly common in extensive governance like this. The most obvious step is having a generallized adjustment of times for feedback and voting, in the net longer. For example, to avoid “leaving everything until last” as a common behavior, it may be more effective to set a limit on the number of proposals or documentation required to evaluate. Example, if the next voting cycle potentially exceed 20 posts (RFGs, mission proposals, or whatever system is established in the future), then divide the voting process as is most convenient (category, first-second half…). Although season 5 resolves this for now, Nothing prevents the problem from reappearing in another format.

Second, the process of reviewing milestones and status of projects and grants, although new roles dedicated to this aspect are contemplated (to be voted), I’m surprised that some kind of “justice league” has not appeared, as a formal independent but outsider team. monitoring the status of each mission, grant, etc. With the existence of retroPGFs, it should be enough motivation for those skilled in this task.

[FractalVisions]

@Joxes

I’m surprised that some kind of “justice league” has not appeared, as a formal independent but outsider team.

There is actually a really cool milestone reporting dashboard that is coming for all of the grantees here on optimism to report their impact and how their funds are distributed…

The thought of a “Justice League” is actually really great. I love that idea.

[brichis]

GM @Joxes!

I believe this might pique your interest. I’m not entirely sure if this is what you had in mind, but I’m sharing the link with you just in case: DRAFT: Proposed Grants Council Charter - Season 5

@danelund.eth

Milestones and Metrics Sub-Committee:

• Goals: assessing historical grant finalist progress on milestones, confirming final milestones for Season 5 grants, and maintaining relevant council and reviewer metrics
• Non-goal: not meant to be punitive for the sake of being punitive
• The sub-committee will create a Milestone Hub in coordination with the operations manager in order to provide a clear location for proposers to report milestones and for the community to review milestone progress

Have a nice day!

[Joxes]

Hey; yes I read it before, I’m referring more to a completely independent group of watchers (outsiders) dedicated exclusively to providing alerts and analysis in this regard, and other related activities (curation maybe?).