Season 2 has come to an end! and with this we write here our thoughts of community and participants for the DeFi LATAM delegation for this governance.
Introduction
First of all we want to clarify that this doesn’t represent isolated individual thoughts, but also a compilation of thoughts from members interested in the Optimism governance from our DeFi LATAM community delegation, as is described in our commitment as delegates.
Very important say that this includes the thoughts of our work team to make possible our labours in DeFi C committee and the Tooling committee. Our contributors: @Netrim, @AxlVaz and @Jadmat.
Next we are going to express positives, negatives and other thoughts that we learned from season 2.
Internal work in DeFi LATAM
As we expressed in our participation in the two committees, as a team we managed to carry out our work in a timely manner. As a team of 4, the division of labor for each of the proposals in the queue according to the corresponding committee, based on the expertise, knowledge, and context of each proposal and the team behind it, was correct. Then these discussions ended internally among our team, supporting our independent line of thought. Happily we were able to gain experience in a shared way.
Positive
- More minds, better ideas.
- The determination of tasks and responsibilities for each one facilitated the development and delivery of reasoning in an orderly and formal manner, ready for discussion.
- Each member worked on the proposals where they liked to focus the most and with the greatest motivation.
- Participation in the forum was remarkably active as a group and individually.
Negative
- Coordination work is not easily achieved in the early stages.
Workflow between committees
We are one of the few delegations that formally work as a group, which implies that coordination for the rest of the fellow committee members must be well managed. In this sense, we need to issue a special thanks to the committee leaders @OPUser and @krzkaczor because we are happy with the trust received, as well as the rest of the members. We learned a lot in the process and we hope that you all have also felt comfortable with our participation.
Positive
- Good relationship between the members of the committees from the beginning and motivations to do what is right at all times in our internal work.
- The discussions about the evaluation of the proposals in themselves and according to the expertise of each member were learning for all.
- Consensus was reached in relativegood way and was never a reason for division.
Negative
- Communication is not always optimal.
- The lack of availability caused delays in some parts of the process, so it did not fit well with the timing of the governance processes.
Impact on season 2
Committees contributed at first to lighten the workload of the delegates to evaluate the proposals, but they quickly became a cause rather than a discouragement for the participation in the forum by delegates not involved in some form of committee, mainly. On the other hand, the presence of these committees as a “trusted source of consultation” for governance generated more friction and sometimes personal discussions that lost focus or turned the environment into a hostile one, for example, when some proposals were rejected.
Seen from the outside, the committees failed on several occasions in their communicative role of being up to date, accompanying the proposals until their evaluation. From our side, we are proud that the reports issued by our committees had a comprehensive and even sophisticated analysis for the understanding of all parties.
Positive
- Iterative governance generated interesting discussions regarding the scope of the Committees that are reflected in Season 3, with the Council of Grants.
- Helped show which delegates were really involved, even if they were not part of any committees.
Negative
- There was a dispersion of information between Discord and the Forum, making it difficult to follow the thread of certain conversations.
- Moderation in the Forum was non-existent.
- Too many backchannels and/or private communications, there was no open communication from the committees in general.
Final thoughts and conclusions
Organization in governance is not easy, even more so when we’re just starting out for a protocol of such prominence as Optimism itself. As a result, following governance is not an easy task and we need to revisit how to align incentives so that contributing participants are rewarded in some way.
Forum discussions are desirable but we note the need for a more moderated environment to stay on topic, fueled earlier by challenged action by committees, but surely in the future by action by the Grants Council.
We want to note that since Phase 0 significant sums of OP tokens have been delivered to numerous projects, it’s time to thoroughly analyze the current impact and assess KPIs where appropriate, or have protocols report performance.
On our side, our commitment to this governance remains the same as the first day and we remain committed to the Optimism ecosystem. We are going to continue working with our community and the entire ecosystem to continue representing Latam within this governance.
Stay Optimistic!