Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
ccarella
@ccarella.eth
Projects that applied but do not meet the eligibility criteria on OP Retro Funding 4. https://gov.optimism.io/t/retro-funding-4-eligibility-criteria-enforcement/8303
4 replies
3 recasts
15 reactions
seneca
@seneca
rounds rektd
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Toady Hawk 🟡 ⌐◨-◨
@toadyhawk.eth
No way. Clearly FIDs aren’t being counted as unique addresses? How did they come up with 5 uniques, rounds must have dispersed funds to thousands of wallets by now.
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
ccarella
@ccarella.eth
The period counted was from Jan 1 to May 1. I don't remember the timing if Rounds, it feels like it's been with us forever.
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
seneca
@seneca
we easily have 10k+ unique claims over that period. the reason we don't qualify is because we initiate the txs on users behalf (good ux: no need for user to have eth or even have to sign the tx) so instead of 10k+, we have 5 addresses claiming. rules are rules i guess but it does sting. onwards.
3 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
ccarella
@ccarella.eth
I would consider an appeal. It can't hurt.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Michael Gingras (lilfrog)
@frog
Sounds like it’s possible to challenge — I would hope optimism is able to be reasonable and see the truth here. Maybe worth a shot?
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Toady Hawk 🟡 ⌐◨-◨
@toadyhawk.eth
“Rules are rules” sure but this is how you lose the forest for the trees imo. Can’t punish builders for abstracting away the worst ux and onboarding thousands of people via farcaster. I don’t have a horse in this race, just love what @rounds is doing and think they deserve to be rewarded for their impact. @jonassft
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
