Creating a place for delegates and gov participants to provide feedback on Season 6.
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
Creating a place for delegates and gov participants to provide feedback on Season 6.
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
It would be useful to include verifications for a userās twitter, wallet address, etc., for users who are running for councils. A lot of people in their nominations link to their twitter/github/attestation score/etc. in order to provide some background or proof of expertise. However, there is currently no verification mechanism, so itās trivial for an impersonator to get through.
In the short term, the foundation could just verify claims and release in discrepancies to the collective, but ideally thereās a long term solution not involving the foundation. For example, nominees have to provide signatures and post from any linked accounts that they are running in the election.
I want to provide feedback for the upcoming Governance RetroRewards in Season 6, as I believe the current system risks discouraging the very engagement we are trying to foster.
By only retroactively rewarding the Top 100 delegates (even when participation is as low as 71%), we risk ossifying the governance system and disincentivizing smaller delegates from continued participation. Some delegates outside the Top 100 outperform several Top 100 delegates in terms of voting activity, yet struggle to accumulate the voting power necessary to break into the top tier.
My guess is that these smaller delegates who vote consistently are often eager to participate more actively in governance beyond just voting but they are discouraged by the fact that others are rewarded for the same amount of work, while they will never receive any compensation for their contribution.
Instead of rewarding greater participation, this system entrenches power and voting inertia, which ultimately goes against our goal of encouraging active governance participation and fighting voter apathy.
Moreover, we often hear how Top Delegates feel overwhelmed and exhausted, yet leaving RetroRewards exclusive to them does not promote wider participationāit has the opposite effect.
In short, I think that continuing to reward only the Top 100 will discourage serious participants from staying engaged and will not fix the participation issues within our governance system. Broader rewards criteria (Top 200, Top 300 ? but with higher thresholds for voting activity : 85% ?) could be a first step to foster engagement.
Context :
It is also important to consider this feedback within the broader context. Over the years, it has become evident that the work of minority active delegates is not being supported. For instance:
To date, there has been no effective mechanism to promote delegate discoverability. Tools like Govscore, Curia gov dashboard, Op Passports, and the Dune āUnderrated Delegatesā Dashboard do exist, but they have never been utilized during important delegation events, such as airdrop rounds, Retro Funding distributions, or grants. New OP holders are never informed of delegatesā activity levels. (Seeing all these Ghost Delegates (delegates who have NEVER voted) gain voting power this week after Airdrop #5 is a huge L.
To date, There is also no effective redelegation mechanism.
It was clearly stated by the foundation that the voting activity of delegates (both Top 100 and beyond) was not considered within the scope of retroactive funding dedicated to governance. Yet, this mechanism could have been an opportunity to reward minority delegates and mitigate the ossification effect caused by limiting rewards to the Top 100 over many seasons.
RPGF is not intended to reward delegates for the duties they should already be fulfilling as part of their roleāthatās what the delegate rewards are for.
In my opinion, the best approach for the next round would be to include more active delegates, not just the top 100.
For context, Iāve been a delegate for over a year, and in case youāre wondering, Iām outside the top 100 myself.
profile:
GM! Iād like to share some thoughts about this season as feedback because I know firsthand that purposeful feedback is always heard.
I believe we need to streamline how the Collective rewards Governance contributors (and, in the future, contribution paths not directly tied to Governance). Currently, there are various mechanisms in place:
As most structures can also participate in Retro Funding if there is a round with a relevant category that meets the rules, I think aligning these funding methods under a unified framework would make it easier for badgeholders to assess the āprofitā component of the Impact = Profit equation. It would also provide participantsāespecially those contributing significant time to the Collectiveāwith more certainty. A more consistent and aligned funding model for Governance Contributors could make the ecosystem more attractive and encourage impactful contributions.
There seems to be some confusion around Retrospective Periods. For instance, the one starting this Decemberāis it part of Season 6 or Season 7? This distinction becomes more relevant for Retro Funding rounds focused on Governance. In Round 6, for example, it was considered part of the upcoming season, but councils often operate on different timelines. For instance, the CFC and ACC are selected/elected and begin working at different times.
Perhaps it would be simpler to define clear distinctions, such as:
This would make it easier to compare periods accurately. For example:
Iāll keep thinking of more ideas, but for now, I want to encourage others to take the time to provide feedback. Itās truly appreciated, and this is the perfect moment to shape what the future will bring next season.
Optimism Retroactive Public Goods Funding is a promising initiative to fund contributions that support the blockchain ecosystem more fairly. However, if there are delays in the roadmap, the following suggestions may help address the challenges:
Importance of Transparency: Any delays should be clearly and promptly communicated to the community and stakeholders. Provide explanations for the delay, its impact, and the steps being taken to address the situation.
Regular Updates: Share consistent progress reports, even if there are no major developments. This reassures the community that the team remains actively engaged.
Identify Obstacles: Conduct a thorough analysis of the causes of delays, whether due to resource shortages, technical complexities, or external factors.
Revise the Timeline: Adjust the roadmap to be more realistic, taking into account potential unforeseen challenges in the future.
User Participation: Involve the community in providing feedback or even helping to solve specific challenges. Collaborative efforts can expedite progress.
Explore New Solutions: The community can serve as a source of inspiration for innovative solutions to overcome delays.
Expand Team Capacity: If feasible, recruit new members with the expertise needed to accelerate progress.
Optimize Resources: Review resource allocation to ensure maximum efficiency.
Quality Over Speed: Ensure that delays do not compromise the quality of the outcomes. Itās better to deliver something well-executed than to rush and produce subpar results.
Long-Term Value: Emphasize how the delay will contribute to greater value in the long run.
Final Message
Delays are common in innovative projects like this, but how they are managed and the lessons learned from them are critical to maintaining community trust and project sustainability. Optimism can use this situation as an opportunity to strengthen its foundation and build stronger relationships with the community.
Hi!
This is my first reflection period after being an active contributor, so I confess to feeling a bit unsure about the best format for this.
When I think about feedback, especially at an organizational level, I find it most useful to highlight major themes for consideration, hoping to draw attention to areas that might have been overlooked.
With that in mind, here are 5 bold ideas that I am excited about and hope will serve as a point of inspiration for season 7:
I admit that some of these ideas are half-baked, and assume there are better ways to land them.
I hope this is understood as an exercise in reflection, rather than as a stance.
I also appreciate any feedback that helps me better understand these issues, in order to improve my future approaches.
Over and out.
Background: I was denied Top 100 Season 6 retro rewards due to a single snapshot that was taken at the end of season 6, even though I was a top 100 delegate in EVERY vote in season 6. A link to the detailed discussion can be found here: Season 6: Retro Governance Participation Rewards - #18 by mastermojo
Suggestion: Implement a new snapshot tracking for 100 delegates by NOT doing a single snapshot at the end of the season. You could explore taking a snapshot once a day (random time) and do weighted average (Maker does this), or do a snapshot at end of each vote, and average those votes at the end. This way we have accountable for voters throughout the entire season, and NOT taking a single snapshot at the end of the season.
As Season 6 concluded, we would like to share some insights and suggestions based on the data collected throughout the season. We hope this feedback will serve as both a reflection and a guide for improvement.
The disparity between voting participation and the rationale and feedback shared by delegates is both intriguing and deserving of thorough analysis. Although the first remains consistent across seasons, a small fraction of decisions is accompanied by thoughtful explanations or reflections. This lack of transparency significantly clouds the decision-making process, urging the need for a more open and accountable approach.
Encouraging delegates to actively share their reasoning and engage in forum discussions is more than a procedural improvementāitās a step toward fostering a culture of accountability and thoughtful deliberation. Such practices also ensure that governance reflects the diversity of perspectives within the community.
The introduction of Mission V2.5 during season 6 aimed to simplify the process by delegating sponsorships to the Grants Council and the Collective Feedback Commission, as they were responsible for creating them. This delegation of responsibilities has reduced the amount of downtime in the grants program and effectively decreased complexity. However, according to the data collected in our comparative report with the previous season, we have observed a decline in the number of mission sponsorships in general and also from actors outside these committees.
and
Itās key to ensure everyone in the Collective can help shape the DAOās priorities. This reflection invites us to consider how to lower barriers for broader participation without compromising the gains in efficiency. While we understand that heading into Season 7, these mechanisms will likely differ due to the nature of the season, we consider it important to raise this concern for collective reflection.
Delegate participation during Season 6 primarily focused on the Top 100 Delegates, nearly half of whom consistently engaged in proposals. However, restricting the focus to the Top 100 overlooks the contributions of committed delegates whose VP places them just outside this group
Rather than simply expanding the delegate range to include more participantsāas suggested in previous seasonsāwe believe the focus should be on ensuring that the most active and committed delegates gain the visibility and influence they deserve, paving the way for them to rise into the Top 100.
One of the biggest challenges lies in assessing the impact of the DAOās efforts. While large budgets and grants represent significant investments, their outcomes arenāt always easy to measure, especially in the short term.
Establishing a centralized repository to track the results of these initiatives could give the Collective valuable insights into whatās workingāand whatās not. This approach could better align resources with meaningful outcomes and provide a clearer picture of the DAOās overall progress.
We believe that increasing participation in feedback and rationales is essential. The gap between voting participation and the rationale and feedback provided by our delegates demands attention. While voting activity remains consistent across seasons, it is interesting that a small portion of activity is shown in feedback and rationales. We expressed about this data in a previous post:
Weāre not offering final answers here. Weāre inviting the collective to explore these questions and help shape stronger, more inclusive, and transparent governance for Optimism.