Ask Tadas - Hey Tadas, does that fact that respect is distributed together for each week for all breakout rooms open up any kinds of attack vectors or gameable systems?
I suppose that it’s best to add a constant cadence of respect distribution each 10 days as this gives ample time for two councils to make a decision regarding any breakout room. This would also resolve any type of gaming or attacking where someone might try making proposals for one or several breakout rooms in order to delay respect given to other breakout room
If a room doesn’t reach 66% and both councils don’t agree to give that room respect, then the room won’t get the respect within the 10 days. However, it’s possible that the next two councils might decide to give respect to the breakout room after say 17 days.
What would happen in this instance? The respect for the other breakout rooms for that week’s event would have been given after ten days and I understand that each week has its own unique NTT. Would it be possible to retroactively award respect with the same nft from 2-3 weeks ago or longer if it was already issued to other breakout rooms?
After our meeting yesterday I was thinking about merging some aspects of the council design and Orpolls.
Why should the council last for one month instead of one week?
What if each council position lasts for one week and the registration is automatically implied when someone votes on a proposal?
I’m thinking that it might make sense to set the following schedule:
Councils are retroactively selected on Mondays at 18:15 UTC based on who voted on a proposal in the past week.
Proposals are due on Fridays at 17 UTC. (As a sidenote, this might also solve the previous issue with Orpolls and I think that a six person council also further solves this issue).
Proposals require approvals from 2 consecutive councils, similar to the original design of Eden on EOS.
Respect is distributed 10 days after each weekly event, which gives the opportunity for two councils to approve a proposal before the regularly scheduled distribution of respect.
I’ve been writing some ideas about this and will try to share more later today. I haven’t thought about it all thoroughly yet but it seems like it might be a more fun, dynamic, and participatory system than a one month registration. It might also be simpler if people don’t need to manually register or be asked to approve a proposal 3 weeks after they registered.
Perhaps a one month registration might be simpler and I imagine that at least 4 of 6 council members would approve proposals if they register for the month. I think that the solution you proposed here seems like it would work well enough for the short term, though I think we need to remove the ambiguity and maybe the suggestions I shared above can help.
I’m also still interested in refining the orec and orpolls ideas further. It seems like a better consensus process than a council. Here are some advantages that I see of the orpolls approach over the monthly council approach:
- The monthly council approach can burden people with needing to approve proposals several weeks after they had the desire to join the council (though it’s not a big burden and some responsibility can be a good thing).
- A six seat council gives equal power to the top six councilors regardless of how much they’ve contributed or how knowledgeable they are about the process. I’m not sure who are the top 6 most respected community members right now, but I’m sure that we’ve invested a lot more time, energy, and thought into Optimism Fractal than the 5th or 6th most respected community members. With a 6 person council, we’d have just as much power to voice opinions and make decisions as the other the council members. If someone has earned 100 Respect then does it make sense for them to have the same vote as someone who has earned 400 Respect? Weighing votes by Respect seems to more accurately reflect the knowledge and care than an equal vote for all councilors, which seems to be in the best interest of the community.
- Voting directly with Respect increases incentives to participate in meetings and earn Respect. This is true for both people in the top 6 and below the top 6. When you can directly earn more ability to voice your opinion when you earn more respect, it gives you more reason to do so. If you’d have to participate for a few months in order to have any formal vote, then people might be less interested in doing it.
- I think voting with Respect is more participatory, inclusive, and fun than electing a council. Everyone gets the chance to have their voice heard more when voting with Respect and there are more reasons to vote in consensus polls/proposals if you know that your vote will count for something, even if you have a small amount of respect.
- Another potential risk with the 6 person council is that it could hinder us from approving proposals to improve the consensus process. I think this is a low risk overall as each highly respected community member is aligned and wants to see Optimism Fractal succeed… but it is worth our awareness that four council members would need to approve a proposal to update the consensus process and if they don’t then (according to the intended rules) we’d need to wait until the next monthly councilor election and perhaps longer for people to earn Respect to become eligible to become a councilor.
That being said, I see value with your idea to keep the consensus process similar to the original intention and we can always update it later with a new consensus process. I think there are probably some advantages over the council design instead of the Orpolls design too, though it seems like the Orpolls design is better right now and I think it might be possible to fix the issue with Orpolls by just moving the proposal deadline date to Friday at 17 UTC instead of Monday at 17 UTC and using the 1/3rd veto vote that you designed in the version you shared yesterday. Part of me wishes that we didn’t set the bootstrap phase at 12 weeks because I think it’s rushing us to share a sub-optimal consensus process, but I think it will be good enough for now and we can change it in the future. It’s only two days before the event and I suppose it’s best to provide the council plan that you shared here once we remove the ambiguity, though I am also curious to see how we can improve it.
I know there’s a lot of text here for a comment and I can share it again in a document once it’s more refined to organize it better. Btw If you don’t already, it helps to use the comment panel in the top-right corner of notion to read longer comments like this. Curious to hear your thoughts!