Seeing a lot of discourse over the ongoing @optimism Onchain Builder round. 

The Foundation wants to reward builders - defined as protocols deploying factory contracts.

This means most creators and teams like @cooprecs driving usage to Zora or Sound etc. don’t qualify.

Thoughts?

Onchain is the new online - FID 206 -  cooprecords.xyz

The funny part is the biggest driver of mints was us using Boosts to reward people with OP we got from RetroPGF Round 3.

Good case study to reinforce that you always need to be evolving and it’s important to not be reliant on grants.

Will be interesting to watch unfold!

This is a tough - I see both sides. 

I would argue driving volume to contracts is more impactful than the deployment of those contracts.

We drove 150k mints across 50+ artist wallets from 200+ songs but since they are Sound contracts - they likely don’t qualify. 

Tough pill to swallow but that’s showbiz

Builder of software and songs. 

Music, Blog, Website: https://www.mattlee.world/links

I largely agree with this sentiment - the issue I see is the logistic burden this creates for a platform like Zora to actually redistribute those rewards.

We're talking product cycles, onchain snapshots, grant programs etc.

I objectively think the intention is correct - just feels like kicking the can down the road.

It makes sense to me. It’s up to zora and sound to reward people building on their platforms. Zora has a great opportunity to redistribute rewards and get a lot of goodwill from builders.

I think the program design is perfectly legitimate and makes sense — *but* they did a bad job communicating eligibility limitations in the marketing and thus misled people (unintentionally). So now IMO they should make that good somehow

internet rabbit • comms @ /splits • https://www.sonyasupposedly.com/

Oh man this language is interesting.

Tbh though I think that's probably across every round and Retro Funding in general - probably less dedicated towards this specific Onchain Builder round if I had to guess

I think the program design is perfectly legitimate and makes sense — *but* they did a bad job communicating eligibility limitations in the marketing and thus misled people (unintentionally). So now IMO they should make that good somehow

https://optimism.mirror.xyz/nz5II2tucf3k8tJ76O6HWwvidLB6TLQXszmMnlnhxWU

building @partydao // writing @ buildingcrypto.xyz // Making crypto consumer friendly

Very great way of looking at it.

I do think having strict eligibility criteria is a bit step up from last round which was far more abstract and narrative drive (tbh to the benefit of people like me).

Still think there's a huge gap missing for onchain creators in 2024.

I think you get a much better grants process when you have strict criteria for who’s eligible to apply.

Better judges, better judging criteria, more visibility on projects in a certain bucket, etc.

IMO the solution is more grants across different categories.

Zora is going to split with creators and developers

This is massive.

Absolutely love to see it!

Zora is going to split with creators and developers 

https://x.com/ourZORA/status/1796249603836362828

not a fan of the decision. should reward all parties that verifiably drive value to the superchain.

my intuition is it's roughly right AND op should do another round that targets "non-protocol builders" (altho, as @sonyasupposedly mentioned, the comms here were v poor / simply incorrect)

Zora is rewarding creators with fees tho rite

Maybe can set up gov forum to ask for additional disbursal

It makes sense to us..!

We are building our own infrastructure and would also be dishing out rewards to the creators themselves for participating in our ecosystem through a curated grants program.

maybe the solution is to get sound to apply, maybe help them with that process? Maybe they share with the people that helped their contracts accumulate the usage stats they needed to get noticed in the grants round?

I think we really oughtta boost reply guys tbh

It feels like it eliminates any project that doesn't have a technical co-founder or protocol.

I said this somewhere else but would like to share here, too. There is an extra level of risk around developing, auditing, and testing contracts. Especially one intended for lots of parties to use widely. I think it’s ok for a round to focus on these folks creating those core tools & shouldering that risk.

Sorry, creators like @cooprecs don’t qualify. Lemon vibes only! 🍋

didnt you get paid through boost already?

Sad to hear it but keep building sir maybe they didnt think about this !