Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
alexander
@wagmialexander
Retro Funding is at an inflection point and the decisions we make will set the incentives moving forward. Under consideration is the enabling of voters to exclude projects that permission the reuse of so much as a single line of contract code. A reductive view of openness. š
1 reply
4 recasts
11 reactions
alexander
@wagmialexander
TL;DR - This will be the Collective's fourth shot at Retro Funding and it is critical that it sends a strong message to app layer builders that on @Optimism impact = profit. Solidity file licenses are a poor prognostic for openness and should not be used as a binary filter.
2 replies
0 recast
2 reactions
alexander
@wagmialexander
Retro Funding is core to Optimismās Economics. It is designed to fuel a flywheel whereby builders/users create demand for block space, that demand drives sequencer revenues, and those revenues are shared as rewards to those creating the most impact. In short, impact = profit.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
alexander
@wagmialexander
Retro Funding has had two primary issues to date: 1) There are not enough revenues to sustain the program 2) Those generating the most revenues are under rewarded Simply, the Collective needs to incentivize orders of magnitude more impact to sustain RF. https://x.com/opmichael_eth/status/1726609910404903240
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
alexander
@wagmialexander
And the results of the last round did not accomplish this. The top OP Stack application layer projects earned 5% of the total rewards. Forks with single digit TVL earned more funding than the projects they copied despite delivering 1% of their impact. https://x.com/carl_cervone/status/1750005488949903817
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
