[WITHDRAWN] RetroPGF for any DAO mission request

Originally authored by @owocki here

Delegate Mission Request Summary:
This mission proposal aims to create resources that allows any DAO, team, or community to run OP style RetroPGF Rounds.

This democratizes OP style RetroPGF so that any DAO can do it with their own token. We want other DAOs to be able to use it + easily follow the convention of RetroPGF Optimism, but also be able to configure it for their own needs.

S5 Intent : 4 Contributions that

  • Educate the broader community about Optimism governance and RetroPGF
  • Increase the resiliency of core governance infrastructure
  • Create user interfaces to interact with governance programs.
  • Create transparency and accountability for governance participants

Proposing Delegate: Lefteris Karapetsas

Proposal Tier: Eagle Tier

Baseline grant amount: 133,700 OP

Should this Foundation Mission be fulfilled by one or multiple applicants: One

Submit by: To be set by Grants Council

Selection by: To be set by Grants Council

Start date: March 2024

Completion date: First cohort within 6 months, second cohort within 12 months.


This mission proposal aims to create resources that allows any DAO, team, or community to run OP style RetroPGF Rounds.

This democratizes OP style RetroPGF so that any DAO can do it with their own token. We want other DAOs to be able to use it + easily follow the convention of RetroPGF Optimism, but also be able to configure it for their own needs.

Democratizing RPGF is important because

  1. It spreads the knowledge of how to actually design RPGF rounds (as opposed to just LARP about it on twitter).
  2. It creates more shots on goal for trying things (as opposed to just having theories about what might work)
  3. More funding for more public goods builders. That means more blockspace consumed (we will push people to use OP mainnet) + positive brand impressions for Optimism.
  4. It will create learnings about how to do RetroPGF that could then add value back into the Optimism ecosystem.
  5. RetroPGF will become a movement wherein RetroPGF rounds will feed other RetroPGF rounds, ultimately creating bottoms up signal about impact=profit in other DAOs.

How will this Delegate Mission Request help accomplish the above Intent?

  • Maintaining the repo for a consumer facing dapp
  • Creating a community of practice around it
    • Running 2 training programs.
    • Moderating the telegram channel
    • Creating content about best practices.
    • Supporting people who run EasyRetroPGF Rounds

What is required to execute this Delegate Mission Request?

  • We (@owocki) got the following in house already.
    • 2 Program Managers
    • 2 Educators
    • 2 Developer
  • Support channels for anyone interested in running RetroPGF rounds and trainees

How should the Token House measure progress towards this Mission?

  • These measures should focus on progress towards completion. Including expected completion dates for each is recommended
  • Progress reports on the forum through a Mission Communication thread
  • Case Studies from each organization running a RetroPGF round
  • Please be as specific as possible in defining measures of progress so that Token House delegates can accurately track execution
    • How many rounds were run? How much capital was deployed?
    • Round Manager Training Program run - did the program run?
    • Round Manager Education - was 6 pieces of content about best practices created?
    • Did any learnings inform the design of Optimism RetroPGF rounds?
    • Case studies from each community running RPGF rounds?

How should badgeholders measure impact upon completion of this Mission?

  • How many rounds were run? How much capital was deployed?
  • How much blockspace was consumed on OP mainnet or superchain chains?
  • Case Studies

Have you engaged a Grant-as-a-service provider for this Mission Request?
NO, but the initial EasyRetroPGF.xyz build was created Optimism Foundation RFP 104 and 106

Has anyone other than the Proposing Delegate contributed to this Mission Request?

Yes. The software/thinking behind this proposal has been shaped by

  1. Kevin Owocki
  2. Scott Moore
  3. Linda Xie
  4. Lefteris
  5. Carlos Melgar
  6. Optimism Foundation

Below some comments by the original author of the proposal Kevin Owocki on gitcoin/OP alignment. :point_down:

This proposal has also been shaped by years of Gitcoin/Optimism alignment. We have always felt very mission aligned with Optimism. Here are a couple data points.

  1. OP/GC have similar missions regarding public goods.
  2. Plasma Group (the corporate predecessor to Optimism) raised money on Gitcoin Grants during round 1, 2, and 3.
  3. Plasma Group were some of the earliest funders of the Gitcoin Grants Matching Pool.
  4. Gitcoin donors were rewarded in OP Airdrop 1.
  5. Optimism was one of the first L2s that Gitcoin Grants Stack supported.
  6. I’ve done a handful of greenpill episodes with members of Optimism.
  7. https://publicgoods.network/ (a L2 for supporting public goods which Gitcoin has helped to seed) was built on top of OP Stack + is part of the superchain.
  8. I’ve participated in the OP Onchain summit in Istanbul, and we’ve also done public speaking together at Schelling Point (on multiple occasions).
  9. We’ve commissioned custom art about Ethers Phoenix.
  10. In RPGF Round 3, we build the round3.optimism.io interface for the OP collective.

Hi @lefterisjp and @owocki I love this idea.

EthernautDAO is going to do a RetroPGF with the OP received from RPGF 3 and will probably be the guinea pig of this mission. We won’t use a different token, just a portion of the OP received.

I am an Optimism delegate with sufficient voting power and I believe this proposal is ready to move to a vote.


Excellent idea. RPGF should be more generalised across the Ethereum ecosystem.


In principle I think this is great - but I’m unclear on whether this mission is intended to be filled directly by @owocki , in which case this mission request is misspecified.

It also appears that a minimal build of EasyRetroPGF.xyz already exists—in which case wouldn’t it be better served by RPGF?

It’s just unclear what to do with this


Hi there, thanks for the comment!

It also appears that a minimal build of EasyRetroPGF.xyz already exists

This proposal includes more than just creating the tool. It includes education + training (2 cohorts) + also dev/marketing/community building support for doing RPGF.

I defer to the OP governance process as to whether this is better as a Mission Request or RPGF recipient itself (though I think it will be hard to fund this retroactively when the aforementioned work has not been done yet)


Would this be better as a growth grant like 10k OP to each dao to experiment with launching? Can be additional to this but sadly time to submit the mission proposal is nearly up.


so this is a 133k OP grant specifically for education and training your team over a year?

Is there already funding from other sources, such as gitcoin?

1 Like

no it is for ongoing software development + software support primarily. secondarily, the creation of a community of practice (marketing, education, and training) will be administered by us FOR the teams that are running the RPGF rounds.

I think this covers it.

happy for gitcoin to co-fund it.

(though now that gitcoin is a DAO,id have to follow their governance to get confirmation of that. failing that, i think i could get some capital from the entity that employs me, called WEST)

i like this idea :point_down:, perhaps this is something we could pinch off some funds for (though we’d have to decide the governance of who gets the OP - shooting from the hip, id start with the larger rounds + for the most legit brands)

1 Like

What would the breakdown of anticipated costs be between maintaining the repo and the 4 PM/education staff members?

In any case, this is indeed a misspecified mission then because the easyretropgf project is intended to be the recipient of it.

1 Like

the dev ($120k x 2) + designers ($110k) + education ($70k) + content producer ($50k)… together are roughly $500k/year full time.

but this is an imprecise exercise bc:

  1. a couple of these people are already on staff on my team
  2. i think this is more of half time thing depending on where things are in the year. i think it will cost us roughly $250k - $300k to do this over 12 months.
  3. also buffering in some $$$ for OP price volatility.

we are the ones who built easyretropgf (with all of the history/nuance noted above), so this feels like splitting hairs to me.

but i am not as deeply familiar with the rules as you are, so its possible im wrong. for my edification, could you point to the rule or document that leads you to think this is misspecified?

1 Like

I have drafted a mission request for this

Tagging @Gonna.eth @jackanorak if you want to sponsor

Gitcoin could help bootstrap some larger round funds for established brands while still opening an opportunity for startups to get small funding to experiment through governance funds.

This will boost the number of your users too

1 Like

these mission requests are not intended to be filled by specific entities - they’re more like RFPs. so the fact that you designed specs that you were intending to fill yourself is more like an application for a grant rather than an RFP. this is what makes it not splitting hairs but out of scope for these.

yes, i believe the point is that it would be doable and in fact more efficient to fund this retroactively once the work is done. today the impact of the fact of the build is measurable. in 6 months you’ll have been largely into phase 1, and the impact of that will be measured (and liquid), and so on.

1 Like

there’s no need for this. @owocki can simply apply through the Grant Council when they start growth grant cycles.

1 Like

I thought I had seen some mission requests where it specifies people who would fulfill them. Such as this: [READY TO VOTE] TechNERD S5 Application

But then in closer inspection it seems that it specifies some people from the foundation who would work on the moderation.

Anyway I am a bit confused in how these mission requests will end up working but if you think this is better of as a grant if you could guide @owocki in which kind of grant to apply I am sure he would not mind.


yeah absolutely. there’ve been quite a few that have specific grantees in mind. these are misspecified and i’m gonna have to play hall monitor i guess. technerd does seem correct, ad it’s generally encouraged to have existing admin oversee these (though i’m already now anticipating grumbling abt all the new work that’s gonna get dropped).

and yeah @owocki happy to guide you - again, i do think the idea’s great


TechNERD mission select 10 TechNerds from the community so is a mission request since somebody can apply?

My mission is for startup projects where if the growth process is the same as in previous cycles these startups never get a grant. Because the growth process is biased toward big names. Gitcoin can simply apply but not for small projects (Unless Gitcoin will apply for these startups rather than themselves).

1 Like

I like this idea but how does this benefit Optimism directly? I understand the tangential impact by bringing awareness to Optimism governance, but I don’t see how this would benefit Optimism in a tangible way.

1 Like

I think it’s a counter-intuitive one. It might appear that this effectively provides competitors with the same public goods mechanism that is distinctive to Optimism. But I think, as many have commented on CT and elsewhere, it is probably not a good thing for the entire public goods funding of the Ethereum ecosystem to fall on a single protocol. In a way it’s a meta-public good to expand the public goods model across the ecosystem. This is a benefits everyone, rather than benefits just Optimism moment (though I believe it would benefit Optimism too, reducing the Citizen’s burden, reducing dilution of distribution, etc.).


hey @katie and @postpolar it benefits optimism in a meta-way as polar mentioned. A lot of the alignment between this and OP is also shown in the last paragraph by Kevin in the proposal.

That said after discussion with multiple people in governance and with Kevin I will withdraw this one as it’s not matching the criteria of a mission request since it’s also assigning a team to do the work as opposed to being an open RFP for anyone to pick up and work on.

This idea though is really important imo and encourage @owocki to apply for a grant for it in the upcoming grants season.

Edit: I have no idea how to withdraw >.< so I will just edit the title.


I think the change in the title is enough

1 Like