Upcoming Retro rounds and their design

[TheMvp07]

Hello, all the changes that are being proposed sound really interesting. I have a question regarding this new round. Is there any difference in evaluation between new projects that are presented and those that have already received funds from previous rounds? Greetings

[InvestInMusic]

As a leading onchain media platform focused on music, we’re helping lay the foundations for music culture across the Optimism collective.

Our podcasts, clips, and newsletters cover the industry’s latest, from new music to emerging artists and leading voices who are building on the Superchain.

We also help onboard artists and creators, aligning our brand with Optimism’s vision and growing the Superchain’s mindshare.

Our grant in RetroPGF Round 3 is the primary source of our ongoing runway and has been essential for our growth and consistency.

However, we’re not eligible for retroactive rewards under the new “Retro Funding” framework because consumer facing tools, educational initiatives, and events are out of scope.

Our approach to minting—utilizing the same contract for our podcast episodes, rather than individual contracts per episode—make it challenging for us and other projects to meet the eligibility criteria for the “Token House Missions Collective–Intent 2: Grow the Superchain”.

This is why we’re kindly requesting some clarity and guidance on how to adjust our contributions to meet the criteria under the new “Retro Funding” framework.

We think that recognizing the impact of cultural and educational projects that might not fit into quantitative assessment models so neatly but are essential to the ecosystem’s growth could go a long way.

Alternatively, including them within a specific category under the “Token House Missions–Collective Intents” could deepen Optimism’s understanding of how these contributors drive value for the ecosystem, while also ensuring that many active Superchain projects are rewarded.

Thank you for considering our input!

We’d greatly appreciate some clarity on the “Retro Funding” criteria and are also available to offer feedback or help in any way we can!

[SEEDGov]

This is a rationale for the delegation of SEED Latam, discussed among @Joxes, @Pumbi, @habacuc.eth and @delphine and we are sharing it below.

@system

The aim for sizing round rewards is to provide OP rewards which accurately reflect the impact within the scope of a retro round and provide a strong incentive for contributing to the Collective.

We agree with the new approach of conducting specific scope rounds as we consider it to be simpler both for applicants when participating, as well as for badge holders when evaluating. Additionally, having the calendar in advance provides predictability to when builders would be potentially rewarded for their positive impacts on the Collective.

@system

The Collective is focused on growing the number of active onchain builders

Rewarding builders/projects can have a positive impact in the form of user activity, which translates into increased fee generation and network sustainability. In other words, this not only boosts the utility and activity on the network but also attracts more users and participants, leading to more transactions and higher fee revenues.

@system

• Thesis #1: By sorting badgeholders into smaller groups dedicated to evaluating a specific set of applications, impact measurement is improved.

• Thesis #2: Sortition, the selection of public jurors by using a random representative sample, allows us to effectively scale citizenship

@system

• Thesis #3: By leveraging quantitive metrics, citizens are able to more accurately express their preferences for the types of impact they want to reward, as well as make more accurate judgements of the impact delivered by individual projects.

We are curious how the Impact Juries and Metrics-based Evaluation experiments unfold in practice. There have been several attempts to measure this so far in an “objective” way, but subjective appraisals and other assessments always remain present in each evaluator’s criteria.

The Citizens’ House has already begun its on-chain operations this year, but for the remainder of the year, it will continue to rely heavily on the opinions and decisions of the Foundation. Granting it more autonomy in decision-making will help it consolidate more quickly, as the current roadmap is perceived as too slow.

@system

Contributions which fall outside of the scope of upcoming retro rounds include consumer facing tools, education initiatives and events. The Collective can still support these contributions via Token House Missions .

There is considerable uncertainty about educational initiatives, events, and consumer-facing tools. While it is clarified that they may be rewarded through Missions, more clarity should be provided for projects that generate impact in these areas.

Finally, regarding the name change, we consider the unilateral decision by the Foundation to remove the phrase “Public Goods” from RPGF to have been a significant mistake from a strategic perspective. We believe it would have been more than necessary to involve the Citizens’ House in analyzing and making that decision, possibly through inclusive voting. Since its inception, the RPGF brand has been a cornerstone of Optimism, setting a milestone in the industry by demonstrating that builders who choose to construct public goods can be sustainable. We understand that Retro Funding is presented as a rebranding rather than a change in the ultimate goal of funding public goods, as this change opens up possibilities for various types of contributions, not necessarily public goods to be retroactively funded. However, it has been evident that the community has not embraced this name change well. This is why we wonder if this modification could have been part of a concave decision, that is, more open and collecting varied opinions from DAO participants to enrich the decision, rather than being a closed process.

[LauNaMu]

First, I appreciate the continous effort to innovate and experiment with the design of Retroactive Rounds as led by the Foundation, Here are some pivotal considerations and suggestions based on the proposed changes for the upcoming season:

Overall, I think the design is moving in the right direction by having more tightly scoped rounds, and new experiments, and more!, ways in which to experiment with the design of each round: including how different types of impact are evaluated, prioritized through the size of the rounds and a hopefully also a cleaner scope of work for the participants involved.

There are however some things I want to flag that I do consider are important to not be overlooked:

1. Funding Contributions outside of the upcoming 2024 RetroRounds:

• Need for Backup Funding: Over the last 2 years, RetroPGF has been creating a flywheel to incentivize Members of the Collective to generate value in a variety of forms. Fundamental contribution types that can lead to the adoption of users, who in return generate sequencer fees, have been left out such as education initiatives or consumer facing tools. I would believe it crucial to develop a backup plan for funding contributions that fall outside the current scope. Without this, we risk losing the momentum and expectations built over two years, and possibly driving builders to seek opportunities elsewhere out of necessity.

The perception that certain categories were overfunded in previous RetroPGF rounds, or that they were challenging to evaluate, seems to have influenced their exclusion. However, I believe there were more constructive ways to maintain funding for these types of contributions. One possibility would be to introduce a narrowly scoped round specifically for these categories, overseen by Impact Judges and allocated a modest budget. Given the ongoing advocacy for evaluating Education and Events retroactively, the current choice to limit these initiatives to either proactive funding or no funding at all appears to be a regression. This approach contradicts our previously established understanding of how best to assess and support these critical areas.

Contributor Tracks:
What is the future of Official Contributor tracks, especially those moderating our Discord and providing other services for the Collective directly through the official channels?

Governance and Participation:

• Metagovernance Shift: As we move towards Open Metagovernance, detailed information about governance decisions will become crucial for an informed participation by the CFC and overall the Citizens House. A good first step for the round design with be to have greater transparency on how specific contributions were selected for funding. It’s also important to understand the rationale behind prioritizing certain initiatives through RetroRounds over others. I believe the selection of categories should be considered part of the experiment design, so, understanding that by prioritizing these areas we are not-funding others and therefore we should explore what was the impact resulting from this choice to the growth of the Collective.

• Facilitated Discussions: I strongly believe there was a big missed opportunity for more structured and inclusive discussions on what is defined as impact within the Optimism Collective. As the Coordination steward for the Collective, it would be beneficial that the Foundation prioritized and pushed for these conversations to take place. This would help to prevent segmented and ineffective conversations.

• Expectation Management for Badgeholders: From conversations with other Badgeholders, and considering the feedback listed by the Foundation above, I believe there needs to be clearer communication to Badgeholders about their commitment and responsibilities as Citizens, this will help to reduce stress and ensure sustained engagement. If Citizens are not familiar with the game they are playing, they won’t play.

Evaluation and Impact:

• Clarifying the distinction between Measurement and Evaluation: I’m surprised that Measurment and Evaluation of Impact is treated as the same thing in the post. They are not. These are two different parts of a process and should be performed differently with different tools and frameworks. The current approach to evaluating impact seems inconsistent and may benefit from a better definiton.

• Role of Badgeholders: We need to clarify whether Badgeholders are expected to measure the impact or evaluate the impact of projects. This is not and should not be treated as the same task, least of all be thought that both can be achieved with the same tools. Understanding their role will help align tools and processes accordingly.

• The known unknown: Who are the badgeholders and what are their biases based on their fields of expertise? Humans have a natural bias to prefer what is known to them. It would appear that in the future designs this isn’t taken into consideration. Would be worth considering to avoid pointing to failed past experiments when the cause for their failure may not be in the one of the controlled variables.

[NewtroArts]

Just created a topic regarding the new changes on the Builder’s category, which i think might help improve things in next rounds.

Regarding tokenized art, local cultural impact and RPGF4

Hello OP Collective, first time making a topic in here. This is the user known as Bulls here writing, artist and founder of, and in representation of the project NewtroArts (2022 - present, localized in Argentina), a collective of w3b artists and cultural managers from Latin America having a blast at the Superchain! To give a bit more of context (being this our first time here posting) i’ll mention that we were RPGF3 winners. An impactful event for our project, that changed it all! <3 <3 <3 T…

[lavande]

Hi @LauNaMu! Paraphrasing your points on governance below in order to respond:

• Metagovernance Shift: A good first step for the round design with be to have greater transparency on how specific contributions were selected for funding. It’s also important to understand the rationale behind prioritizing certain initiatives through RetroRounds over others. we should explore what was the impact resulting from this choice to the growth of the Collective.

Yes, definitely! A strong, data-driven approach to determining which categories of contributions should be retro funded is a key part of transitioning the responsibility of setting round scope to the Citizens’ House. Understanding the impact of excluding any contributions is an important part of this analysis.

• Facilitated Discussions: I strongly believe there was a big missed opportunity for more structured and inclusive discussions on what is defined as impact within the Optimism Collective.

There will be several opportunities for this coming up! We will host a more tactical impact metrics workshop as well as experiment with a structured deliberative process to facilitate conversation on a more philosophical/strategic topic. More details on both to follow shortly!

• Expectation Management for Badgeholders: , I believe there needs to be clearer communication to Badgeholders about their commitment and responsibilities as Citizens.

Agreed! Clearly outlined expectations, as well as an explicit opt-in process, will be part of the onboarding experience for Citizens in Season 6.

[Padam]

I loved reading in details the views/feedback/ learnings/ criticisms. I have been following OP Collective for a while now and the change from collective decision making to mandate decisions and approach is quiet visible. I am not a delegate but invested in OP for the reason of governance and I echo feedback and views on improvement mentioned above. The ethos is changed needs communication, change is only constant but clarity makes its easier for all.

[Liliop.eth]

@lavande

There will be several opportunities for this coming up! We will host a more tactical impact metrics workshop as well as experiment with a structured deliberative process to facilitate conversation on a more philosophical/strategic topic. More details on both to follow shortly!

100% agree with you about impact metrics, but which tools do you recommend us to use for show our contributions, could be Attestations, contracts addresses or any other in specific?.

Thanks in advance!!

[Ethplorer.eth]

Hi everyone!
Is it ok, that when I am trying to mint an OP NFT here:

850M OP Dedicated to the Evolution of Retro Funding

it says in my MetaMask:

This is a deceptive request

If you approve this request, a third party known for scams will take all your assets.

See details

• • A known malicious address is involved in the transaction

Something doesn’t look right? [Report an issue](https://blockaid-false-positive-portal.metamask.io/?

[sweetman]

Why are builders on Zora not being rewarded in the Onchain Builders round???

I’ve been building APPS and PROJECTS on Zora.

My projects have met the acceptance criteria. However, the verification step in OPTIMISM tools is refusing to verify our contracts that WE DEPLOYED.

Current stance from @Jonas is our impact goes to Zora.

Why? Is Optimism goal to force us to stop using shared protocols so our builds can be counted?

None of the other rounds this year are for creators. Everyone on the optimism team was shouting how this first round is for creators.

ZORA IS NOTHING WITHOUT BUILDERS / CREATORS

[Tekr0x.eth]

Hi @Jonas I see that Retro Funding 6: Governance was planned for August 2024. It seems this got delayed a bit. Is there a date or time frame known when this wound will take place?

[Bunnic]

It seems this should occur mid-September.

[Ugbuericsam]

Just curious and to ask, how many retro funding rounds are there in a year? Any specific amount?and their timeframes?

[Pumbi]

In 2023, there were two rounds (2 & 3). For 2024, four rounds were scheduled (4 & 5 are already finished, 6 is in voting, and 7 is scheduled for the end of the year).

We do not yet know if this number of rounds will be maintained next year or if there will be changes.

For more info: Retro Funding