What did you find most useful about the grants process?
Opportunities to raise funding, increase awareness, and gain feedback about important work. Discussions at Grants Council Office Hours were very helpful and I greatly appreciated the opportunity to develop relationships with governance leaders by participating in the process.
What would you change about the Grants process?
Lack of feedback and accountability from grants reviewers. Some of the reviewers didn't seem to read my proposals carefully and provided minimal feedback that didn't make sense. Frequently shifting rules and designs resulted in significant unfairness and non-optimal resource allocation.
I want to provide feedback for the upcoming Governance RetroRewards in Season 6, as I believe the current system risks discouraging the very engagement we are trying to foster.
By only retroactively rewarding the Top 100 delegates (even when participation is as low as 71%), we risk ossifying the governance system and disincentivizing smaller delegates from continued participation. Some delegates outside the Top 100 outperform several Top 100 delegates in terms of voting activity, yet struggle to accumulate the voting power necessary to break into the top tier.
My guess is that these smaller delegates who vote consistently are often eager to participate more actively in governance beyond just voting but they are discouraged by the fact that others are rewarded for the same amount of work, while they will never receive any compensation for their contribution.
Instead of rewarding greater participation, this system entrenches power and voting inertia, which ultimately goes against our goal of encouraging active governance participation and fighting voter apathy.
Moreover, we often hear how Top Delegates feel overwhelmed and exhausted, yet leaving RetroRewards exclusive to them does not promote wider participation—it has the opposite effect.
In short, I think that continuing to reward only the Top 100 will discourage serious participants from staying engaged and will not fix the participation issues within our governance system. Broader rewards criteria (Top 200, Top 300 ? but with higher thresholds for voting activity : 85% ?) could be a first step to foster engagement.
Context :
It is also important to consider this feedback within the broader context. Over the years, it has become evident that the work of minority active delegates is not being supported. For instance:
To date, there has been no effective mechanism to promote delegate discoverability. Tools like Govscore, Curia gov dashboard, Op Passports, and the Dune “Underrated Delegates” Dashboard do exist, but they have never been utilized during important delegation events, such as airdrop rounds, Retro Funding distributions, or grants. New OP holders are never informed of delegates’ activity levels. (Seeing all these Ghost Delegates (delegates who have NEVER voted) gain voting power this week after Airdrop #5 is a huge L.
To date, There is also no effective redelegation mechanism.
It was clearly stated by the foundation that the voting activity of delegates (both Top 100 and beyond) was not considered within the scope of retroactive funding dedicated to governance. Yet, this mechanism could have been an opportunity to reward minority delegates and mitigate the ossification effect caused by limiting rewards to the Top 100 over many seasons.
RPGF is not intended to reward delegates for the duties they should already be fulfilling as part of their role—that’s what the delegate rewards are for.
In my opinion, the best approach for the next round would be to include more active delegates, not just the top 100.
For context, I’ve been a delegate for over a year, and in case you’re wondering, I’m outside the top 100 myself.
profile:
vote.optimism.io inbestprogram.eth on Agora See what inbestprogram.eth believes and how they vote on Optimism governance.
GM! I’d like to share some thoughts about this season as feedback because I know firsthand that purposeful feedback is always heard.
Incentives:
I believe we need to streamline how the Collective rewards Governance contributors (and, in the future, contribution paths not directly tied to Governance). Currently, there are various mechanisms in place:
- Some positions are funded via Foundation Grants, which are locked for one year (e.g., GovNERD Maintainers) or stipends from the Foundation (e.g., Security Council).
- Others are funded via the Governance Fund, where a budget is proposed, approved by the Token House, and paid periodically (e.g., Grants Council, CoCC, DAB).
- Some are rewarded via Retro Rewards for governance contributors (e.g., Anticapture Commission) after each season, though the considerations are not always consistent.
As most structures can also participate in Retro Funding if there is a round with a relevant category that meets the rules, I think aligning these funding methods under a unified framework would make it easier for badgeholders to assess the “profit” component of the Impact = Profit equation. It would also provide participants—especially those contributing significant time to the Collective—with more certainty. A more consistent and aligned funding model for Governance Contributors could make the ecosystem more attractive and encourage impactful contributions.
Seasons and Retrospectives:
There seems to be some confusion around Retrospective Periods. For instance, the one starting this December—is it part of Season 6 or Season 7? This distinction becomes more relevant for Retro Funding rounds focused on Governance. In Round 6, for example, it was considered part of the upcoming season, but councils often operate on different timelines. For instance, the CFC and ACC are selected/elected and begin working at different times.
Perhaps it would be simpler to define clear distinctions, such as:
- Season 6
- Reflection Period for Season 6, etc.
This would make it easier to compare periods accurately. For example:
- The CFC covered Reflection Period #5 and Season #6.
- The ACC covered Season #6 and Reflection Period #6.
Retro Funding App Wishlist:
- I’d love for a window to pop up when I hover over a project in my ballot. It was challenging to distinguish, for example, whether it was Anticapture Commission [Season 5] or Anticapture Commission [Season 6] because the ballot only showed “Anticapture Commission,” and there was no way to navigate directly to the project from the ballot.
- It could be interesting to add a feature to select a percentage decrease in funding (for example, Grants, VCs, etc.) the same way we allocate percentages to categories. For instance, how would the ballot look if we reduced grant funding by 25%? This could offer quantitative data to visualize the outcomes from the deliberative process.
- I’d like a way to see how many projects belong to the same main project but are listed under different categories.
I’ll keep thinking of more ideas, but for now, I want to encourage others to take the time to provide feedback. It’s truly appreciated, and this is the perfect moment to shape what the future will bring next season.
Optimism Retroactive Public Goods Funding is a promising initiative to fund contributions that support the blockchain ecosystem more fairly. However, if there are delays in the roadmap, the following suggestions may help address the challenges:
- Prioritize Transparent Communication
Importance of Transparency: Any delays should be clearly and promptly communicated to the community and stakeholders. Provide explanations for the delay, its impact, and the steps being taken to address the situation.
Regular Updates: Share consistent progress reports, even if there are no major developments. This reassures the community that the team remains actively engaged.
- Reevaluate the Work Plan
Identify Obstacles: Conduct a thorough analysis of the causes of delays, whether due to resource shortages, technical complexities, or external factors.
Revise the Timeline: Adjust the roadmap to be more realistic, taking into account potential unforeseen challenges in the future.
- Engage the Community in the Process
User Participation: Involve the community in providing feedback or even helping to solve specific challenges. Collaborative efforts can expedite progress.
Explore New Solutions: The community can serve as a source of inspiration for innovative solutions to overcome delays.
- Diversify the Team and Resources
Expand Team Capacity: If feasible, recruit new members with the expertise needed to accelerate progress.
Optimize Resources: Review resource allocation to ensure maximum efficiency.
- Focus on Impact Over Timing
Quality Over Speed: Ensure that delays do not compromise the quality of the outcomes. It’s better to deliver something well-executed than to rush and produce subpar results.
Long-Term Value: Emphasize how the delay will contribute to greater value in the long run.
Final Message
Delays are common in innovative projects like this, but how they are managed and the lessons learned from them are critical to maintaining community trust and project sustainability. Optimism can use this situation as an opportunity to strengthen its foundation and build stronger relationships with the community.