Season 5 Feedback Thread

Creating a place for delegates and gov participants to provide feedback on Season 5.

Please leave constructive feedback so we keep the signal to noise ratio high in here! All forum engagement is subject to the Forum Rules of Engagement


As we just discussed in the first token + citizen house call we should think a bit on the quorum needed for citizen vetoing and the rules around it.

Being a citizen (badgeholder) comes with a set of responsibilities such as participating in RPGF and participating in the very few votes needed for the citizens.

To that end I believe we should:

  1. Add a YES/NO to vetos. So that we can have an active voting citizenship set.
  2. Make it a requirement to have a minimum voting participation. Missing a number of votes all the time without any actual excuses should have penalties which could eventually lead to loss of citizenship. May sound harsh but the reality is that this the badge/citizenship is not a status symbol. It’s a responsibility. And if it’s not exercise the entire citizen house would be in danger due to inaction and inability to vote or reach quorum.
  3. If a citizen votes to veto something, they should absolutely accompany it with a post explaining why.

I agree that citizenship should be seen as a responsibility.

For that reason, I think it would be good to actually ask badgeholders if they want to become citizens.

As far as I know, that has simply been assumed - I’m not sure why.

It might also be good to have an official, known way to resign as a citizen (if that already exists, I’m not aware of it - in that case, please do enlighten me! :slightly_smiling_face:)

Just to be clear: Personally, I would like to remain part of Optimism as a citizen. But I do think it would be fair to ask badgeholders before holding them accountable for a job they have not agreed to do.


The below response reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @kaereste and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking and ideation of the two.

One learning that we acquired while reviewing Mission Requests is that the whole process didn’t adequately address how specific or vague Mission Requests had to be when it came to the approach through which each mission would be accomplished.

Our understanding is that, given their higher context, top 100 delegates would identify specific problems or areas in which the collective can improve, and then craft mission requests asking for proposals addressing those areas. A common theme we noticed while reviewing Mission Requests, was confusion in regards to how well-defined the deliverables and the approach should be.

For example, a Mission Request might be about researching alternative RPGF distribution methods. Should the Mission Request specify how that will be achieved (e.g. badgeholder interviews, academic research, creative thinking & design, experimental initiatives, etc), or should that be up to each applicant to propose?

Oftentimes, there’s more than 1 way to address a problem, and we should probably let the individuals or groups applying to Mission Requests propose the best way. That would also open up more opportunities for people to contribute in different ways while also helping get competitive proposals from people looking to fulfill different missions — as opposed to a simple “raise of hand” from people capable of delivering the exact thing outlined in the mission request.

Having said that, we do understand the need for some Mission Requests to be very specific in terms of what the deliverable should be and how it should be achieved. We’re just pointing out the obvious flaw in having that be a blanket approach for all Mission Requests.

At a later date, we’ll follow up with some additional feedback, as well as with some specific examples of the issue mentioned above, which we chose to not publish at this time to avoid influencing delegates’ decisions and the overall process, to illustrate our point.


Hey @Sinkas thanks for your feedback! I just wanted to flag this for myself to come back to at the end of the process and make sure that I receive notification when you choose provide your additional feedback

1 Like

Hey everyone,

Was discussing with @lavande on discord and wondering why Request 2F: Hosting “Optimism Unleashed” event at EthCC 2024 isn’t being funded despite budget being left (see vote here: Agora - OP Proposal: Mission Requests: Intent #2, 4M OP)

It turns out it’s because of the way the approval-ranking system is designed. I would like to suggest to adapt it (and perhaps take example from the ENS DAO).

I’d like to address a potential inefficiency in our current approval-ranking voting system with a hypothetical scenario:

Imagine we have a budget of 1 million OP. The top-ranked proposal asks for 100,000 OP and gets funded. The next highest-ranked proposal requests 1,000,000 OP, which exceeds our remaining budget of 100,000 OP, so it’s not funded. Under the current system, we stop here, leaving 900,000 OP unallocated.

However, if we had a system that allowed us to fund lower-ranked proposals that fit into the remaining budget, we could potentially fund other valuable projects within that unused 900,000 OP.


Consider revising the system to allow funding of smaller, lower-ranked proposals that can fit within the remainder of the budget. This approach would maximize our resource utilization and support a greater number of initiatives.

Let me know what you think!


This was an issue with the previous round too, where it looked like barely any proposals would be funded, so I voted for everything. Voter participation is better, but still relatively low for the specified quorum. Two solutions could be to lower the quorum requirement, or have a minimum budget allocation requirement so proposals below the quorum can be funded till this minimum allocation is fulfilled.