A short recap on RPGF.
The vision of RPGF is to create a new internet that is not owned by a single entity owned yet benefits everyone. It is governed by the community and rewards contributions retroactively, where impact == profit. You can find more details about our vision at https://www.optimism.io/vision.
Optimism governance consists of a two-pillar governance system:
Token House, governed by the $OP Token, controls grants distributed by DAO and committee selection*.
Citizen House, comprising individuals who voluntarily enter a social contract with the Optimism Collective.
*Scope is quite big but keeping it short as of now.
This two-house DAO design aims to achieve a non-plutocratic governance system.
I was excited to receive my Citizen badge and try my best not to break the trust put in me, a stranger decided to refer me which itself is a big achievement for me. My motivation to participate originates from the unique vision of Optimism and its focus on collective efforts. I believe this motivation is also shared among other Citizens. While I may have differing opinions from other citizen’s opinions, our ultimate goal remains the same — to bring Optimism's vision to fruition. Our progress so far is commendable, and with each passing season, it only gets better.
As to why we are all here, especially those not directly invested in Optimism, it could be a sense of belongingness, a desire to support project building in public, or an opportunity to fund projects hindered by regional or language barriers. Some may also see this as a chance to participate in a collective effort to ensure the success of DAO, which they've been waiting for over a decade.
Of course, like any evolving project, the current process is not perfect.
One challenge is finding balance, we must ask ourselves: what would happen if Optimism's vision fails?
While it may have a minimal impact on me, it could significantly affect others. Some collective members have invested considerable time, and energy, this is where I belong, and even capital. A developer building apps on Optimism has a direct impact on its success. This raises questions about whose opinions should hold more weight. Since the inception of the collective, several members have dedicated significant personal resources to advance Optimism's vision. I don’t have an answer to this question, but I believe this iterative experimentation approach taken by the Optimism Foundation could lead us to a place where we both could exist and complement each other.
Another challenge is conflicts of interest. It's crucial to provide an equal platform for expressing opinions without fear of negative repercussions. I have felt instances where badgeholders are hesitant to express their views due to potential impacts on their image/ rewards. Those with contrasting opinions may face online harassment, leading to either silence, compromising mental well-being, or rage quit. This is the sad part, ideally should not happen. One suggestion is to increase the number of badgeholders to mitigate these issues, although it comes with its drawbacks.
With upcoming proposed changes, my primary concern is availability bias, where certain viewpoints may dominate due to their prominence or accessibility, even if they are false. Addressing these biases is crucial for ensuring fair and inclusive decision-making within the community.
Feedback is a crucial part of an iterative experiment, please join the discussion on the gov forum or reach out if you have any feedback or suggestions. I am also happy to address any queries you might have.