A huge thank you is due to delegates and Citizens for their continued dedication to experimentation and iteration.
This Season, the Collective took important steps to adapt governance to better support the Superchain. Governance welcomed the first OP Chains to governance via the Chain Delegation Program, ran the first Security Council elections, experimented with Superchain grants, and ratified Blockspace Charters to support shared upgrades. The Citizensâ House rewarded ~20M OP in Retro Funding Roundâs 4-6, further refining our ability to measure impact. We took steps towards further decentralization with governance approval of permissionless fault proofs, the transfer of the Governance Fund onchain, and the publication of working models for decentralization. These are significant steps forward, which the Collective will build on in future Seasons.
Rewards are made retroactively (see why here) in accordance with the Collective Rewards Framework, which has been updated for Season 7. The highest impact contributions will align with the Collective Intents. Thank you for your continued dedication to this experiment to retroactively reward impact. Being a governance participant requires a serious time commitment and the Collective strongly benefits from your engagement.
The governance participants that meet the below criteria are eligible to receive a rewards as outlined in the below chart (snapshot as of November 20th, the end of the last Voting Cycle of the Season.)
Criteria
Definition
Intent
Reasoning
OP
Active delegates in the Token House
Top 100 delegate with >70% voting participation in Season 6 (abstain votes count towards participation).
Progress towards Decentralization (1)
Voter turnout is critical to the resilience of the governance system
4,000 OP
Delegates that participation in Reflection Period
Top 100 delegate with > 70% voting participation during Special Voting Cycle #23a AND #23b
Progress towards Decentralization (1)
Engagement during Reflection Periods is a crucial part of the feedback process, which enables iterative improvement and metagovernance
2,000 OP
Delegates that were active members of Anticapture Commission
Lead, and Members that maintained > 50% voting participation on Upgrade votes
Progress towards Decentralization (1) and Bring Chains to the Superchain (2)
The Anticapture Commission plays a critical role in balancing power among stakeholders, especially as we onboard new OP Chains with substantial voting power
3,000 OP**
Active Citizens in the Citizensâ House
Citizens that cast a vote on >70% of veto proposals.
Progress towards Decentralization (1)
Being aware of veto proposals is a critical component of capture resistance
250 OP
Citizens that participated in Retro Funding
Citizens that actively voted in Rounds throughout Season 6
Grow Application Developers (3)
Citizen participation allows Retro Funding to reward builders in the ecosystem
2,000 OP total* â Round 4 = 400 OP Round 5 = 800 OP Round 6 = 800 OP
Participation in governance experiments is critical to the further development and decentralization of the system
1,000 OP; 500 OP if could not attend all sessions
Citizen rewards for voting on vetos should be considered experimental and may not continue in the future as we further develop and assess vetos. If continued in future Seasons, these rewards may be qualified by a measure of comprehension / quality in the future.
*The Collective Rewards Framework suggests 2,000 OP per Round, based on the median time spent per badgeholder in Round 3. Rounds 4-6, combined, required a similar amount of time and rewards have been adjusted accordingly.
**While the Season 6 Collective Rewards Framework suggested 4,000 OP for the Anticapture Commissionâs Impact Rating, rewards have been adjusted to 3,000 OP based on survey of ACC members about what their rewards for the Season should be. The Collective Rewards Framework has been updated to reflect this for Season 7.
Qualifying Governance Participants
Consistent with other grants, all rewards will be subject to a KYC and claims flow process.
This round of retroactive governance participation rewards will be allocated from the âUnallocatedâ portion of the Ecosystem Fund and is therefore not subject to governance approval.
In order to be eligible to receive your well deserved rewards the following form must be completed. The claiming window will be open until March 3, 2025 Season 6 Retro Rewards Claim. Upon completion of this form, the Foundation will be in touch via email from either deliveries@optimism.io or julian@optimism.io. You can expect more details regarding KYC and/or claim instructions depending on your current KYC state within the Foundation.
While im glad that we are rewarding our participants. If im incorrect please tell me but it seems as if we are favoring the top 100 delegates more so than any other group. Yes they carry a great amount of the voting power , optimism and the collective sadly does not favor the small holders that self delgate and try to contribute there voting power and participate in the governance process. You say and i quote âOptimism empowers teams and businesses to harness the power and economics of blockchains while being part of a movement thatâs growing the pie for everyone.â But i challenege you are we truly growing the pie for everyone ? How can you grow the pie for everyone but only reward certain individuals? What brought me to optimism many years ago was the very 1st airdrop, that I qualified for because you deemed my wallet address as being priced out of ethereum. While most sold off i held onto the amount that was rewarded to me. I participated in delegation and utilized the network by bridging and doing transactions a nd recieved another airdrop. It was smaller but i was thankful for that. Ive kept at it and have delegated and participated in as many voting cycles as i can remember. I was surprisingly rewarded for the 3rd airdrop, again i was thankful. This is where things changed in the optimism network and rewards started going to other people like developers projects on other networks that while we may have been trying to attract groups and devs to help grow the network, they dumped on us. I participated in the superchain and superfest and still continued to delegate and vote on the differerent line items in the voting cycles airdrop 5 happened and it specifically said that voting / delgating and voting wouldnt be rewarded because its considered ânormalâ governance, which i disagree with especially when it was rewarded before in previous airdrops. Lastly it sounds , unless im misunderstanding that people who participated in the voting cycles , top 100 delagates and special voting councils will be rewarded with this upcoming airdrop, while it sounds like others that have participated will not.be rewarded , how is this fair at all ? How does this include everyone and share the " pie" with everyone. At least in airdrop 3 if you participated and werent a top 100 delegate as long as your voting percentage was over a certain percentage you were rewarded optimism. I have sold none of my allocations of optimism and have participated where i can and how i can. I dont have any dev skills but have been willing to help the collective however i could. I challenge you to check my wallet address if you doubt me : 0xf75Be3127Cf9f5c2aAA754E334cbCB5B5fc12e4F
I need clarification on the statement: âTop 100 delegates with >70% voting participation.â
Does this mean rewards will be given to delegates ranked in the top 100 by voting power, but only if they also have >70% voting participation? If interpreted this way, it could result in fewer than 100 delegates being rewarded if some in the top 100 fail to meet the participation threshold.
Or does it mean rewards will be given to the top 100 delegates by voting power from the pool of delegates with >70% voting participation? This interpretation would ensure that more active delegates(100) are rewarded, compared to the first.
Could someone clarify which approach will be used?
Thats exactly what i was thinking and if we go off of past precidents , thats the way it was done before was you had to be at or above the set percentage to qualify. So if your a top 100 delegate and your not at or above the percentage, you will not qualify
First of all, obvious disclosure, I am among the top 100 delegates so my opinion will be biased.
However, even before I was a top 100 delegate I found this criteria to be fair, mostly due to the current distribution of voting power, which you can see on Curiaâs dashboard: Delegate | Optimism Governance Dashboard by curiaLab.
The truth is, once we move away from the top ~40 of delegates voting power falls off sharply, so they are the ones that represent the vast majority of active voting supply. This is what this proposal is trying to address. Voter activation initiatives are active for new delegates, like @Michael 's GovNFTs GovNFT Incentives Final Results can still run in parallel to retro rewards . This, combined with pariticpation in other councils and retrofunding, seem to be the current preferred ways for new delegate onboarding.
Looking at the curia dashboard , Iâm also seeing for myself a lot of voter apathy that has been discussed on another thread. .
Iâm including it here because I feel the two topics are connected, and perhaps future participation rewards should find a way to reward long-term engagement, especially considering how difficult it seems to be to make large re-delegation efforts from top delegates (see for example one of the top 10 delegates , who has resigned for a long time now but still holds 3% of voting supply and 8% of delegators).
Iâll spend more time reading into the current collective rewards framework, and how we can align this with future intents, but I felt it was worth clarifying both points.
Hey @Oxytocin, what do you think about scrapping the voting power based on how many OP token one has due to delegation from people and rather voting power should be based on how active youâve been in the collective, how far youâve come in terms of contributing to the collective. Iâd like to hear your take on this
I would prefer to keep this thread relative to discussing token rewards. But in either case, I believe something like this could be implemented using other governing bodies like the citizenâs house, as the token house should always represent the amount of tokens delegated.
Hey thank you for your response and fir acknowledging your biased opinion. But i get it and i understand as my opinion is biased as well lol. Yall have earned the top 100 delgates either by purchasing the optimism and gettting the voting power that way or you have enough people delegating to you to do so. And of course voting power drops off drastically as you pointed out, but imo that doesnt mean our vote doesnt / shouldnt count for nothing. However i do have a few questions and maybe you or someone else can answer. Are we all members of the citizen house? As i know the difference between the citizen house and token house are this: citizens house is a 1 for 1 voting power , where as the token house is heavily weighted towards the top 100 delegates , is that a fair assumption ? And even though im not a top 100 delgate , i still consider myself a delegate as i vote and self delegate to myself to vote on all proposals. I wish there were more opportunities to participate that i coukd take advantage of and participate in. Im not a dev so a lot of the programs i cant take part in. But again thank you for your taking the time to express your thoughts and opinions in regards to the above post
Hey guys I just want to post some feedback/criticism, as I have a bitter taste in my mouth about this recent âretro governance participation rewardsâ round:
I was denied retrofunding in the âactive delegate in the token house categoryâ and as a âdelegate that participated in reflection periodâ. I was a top 100 delegate this entire season 6 as shown on my delegate page, and on every vote. I take pride in Optimism Governance, and have been on Optimism since day 1 (Thanks to Synthetix).
To my surprise I discovered I was not included for these two categories for retrofunding (I missed out on 6k OP).
After seasons 6 end I moved some OP tokens to a new undelegated wallet, and during this time period Optimism took the ONLY snapshot of the top 100 delegates for season 6. I reached out to Optimism, and to my surprise they said their snapshot was taken at the end of the season, and because I was unlucky and moved some OP tokens my Top 100 delegate status was void, and they would not change when the snapshot was taken.
âUnfortunately we are not able to retroactively change the definition of who/when the snapshot is taken which I hope you can understand.â
My feedback here is what is the point of voting as a top 100 delegate if the snapshot is done at the end of the season, and not during each vote? This opens up the governance voting to gamification, and the point of the retrofunding is to reward top 100 delegates who took time out of their day to read and vote on every proposal which according to me did not happen here.
My suggestion to Optimism is this: 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.
Agreed, snapshot at the end of the season is super gameable⌠I could vote with just 1 OP on all proposals then buy a bunch of OP right before the snapshot, delegate it to myself, get the rewards then sell it. Or if I am just out of the top 100 I can buy my way in just before the snapshot.
Your suggested solution would be more ideal but I assume would add a bit more overhead for the foundation team.
Would be interested to hear from @system why it is done this way. Maybe it is done this way for a reason we do not yet know?
We can confirm this is how the measurement is done at Maker historically, and has worked well.
Additionally, for Maker, when delegates migrate contracts (delegate contracts have a 2-year expiration date), they sum the votes on both old and new addresses for the month of the migration. Useful for edge cases to have that policy in advance.
We also want to make sure everyone is aware that we conveniently have snapshots at every vote that was taken in Season 6.
It would be fairly straightforward to just look at those and average them together, rather than rely upon a single snapshot at the tail end of the season.
Tagging @lavande@maxwell to look into this. It doesnât seem fair that one of the most active and engaged delegates wouldnât get their awards due to a logistical issue. Gotta make sure we take care of our community
