Optimism is well known for its development of the OP Mainnet, an optimistic rollup designed to help scale the Ethereum network. However, in addition to being a pioneer in Ethereum layer 2 solutions, Optimism is also a leader when it comes to innovative community incentivization and public goods development.  In particular, Optimism stands out for its “retroactive public goods funding” system that rewards a broad swath of contributors for their impact to the network. In order to direct the community’s contributions, the Optimism Foundation formed the Optimism Collective - a bicameral DAO - with a focus on “working together to reward public goods and build a sustainable future for Ethereum.” Imbued in the Collective’s constitution is a “commitment to experimentation” with how best to structure the governance and work of the “band of companies, communities, and citizens” that make up the Collective.

Functionally, the work of the Optimism Collective is organized in discrete periods called “Seasons.” At the start of each season, the Optimism Foundation typically proposes a new experiment, the Collective tries it and, at the end of the season, the Collective reflects and adjusts the process for the next one. In the current season, Season 4, the Optimism Foundation proposed four Collective Intents meant to guide the community’s contributions and a new grant process for projects rewarding contributors.

As part of this new grant process, teams (known as Alliances) propose Missions (short-term projects) aligned with one of the Collective Intents and request a certain amount of OP (Optimism’s token). Over 50 Mission Proposals were submitted, and of those, 31 Missions moved on to be considered for funding.

Which Missions receive funding will be decided by OP delegates through an approval voting process (explained below). Since each Intent has a separate budget, the Missions are separated by the Intent they are aiming to fulfill. Below we list each Intent, its budget, as well as its number of proposed Missions.

If you hold OP tokens, click each Intent to vote on Boardroom. Note: Intent 2 is not listed as its budget is allocated through a separate process.

• Intent 1: Progress Towards Technical Decentralization

  • Budget: 1,000,000 OP tokens

  • 14 proposed Missions

• Intent 3: Spread Awareness of the Optimistic Vision

  • Budget: 1,000,000 OP tokens

  • 11 Proposed Missions

• Intent 4: Governance Accessibility

  • Budget: 3,000,000 OP tokens

  • 6 Proposed Missions

In order to qualify for funding, Alliances must plan to finish their Mission before the end of the season (September 20), and Alliances must not request funding beyond their Collective Trust Tier.

The Mission process is as follows:

1. Alliances propose a draft of their Mission on the forum

2. Missions must receive approval from at least four delegates with greater than .25% of the total voting power on the forum

3. Once approval is received on the forum, all approved Missions will be considered by delegates in on-chain approval voting

4. Missions will receive funding from most approvals to least approvals until the budget of the Intent runs out

5. In order to qualify for funding, Missions must receive 51% of quorum in approvals (greater than ~5.9M OP)

This process is subject to change in future seasons.

Currently, the Missions are in the on-chain phase of voting. Voting will end on Wednesday July 12 at 22:00 UTC.

Visit Optimism’s proposal page on Boardroom.

Missions have been proposed by a diverse group of teams, ranging from well-established organizations to independent creators. The Mission process itself was developed by the Optimism Foundation.

Overall, the Optimism Collective appears to view the Mission process as a positive development. The announcement received mostly positive feedback in the forum, and each intent’s budget was previously approved by delegates through on-chain voting. Further, nearly 3/5 of all proposed Missions were approved for on-chain voting, and delegates and community members have shown excitement in the forum for several Missions.

Although each individual Mission has its own critiques and comments, a common theme among Mission opposition has been concerns over the size of the Missions’ proposed budgets. This concern has been frequently cited by delegates refusing to approve Missions. Further, a community member criticized the Mission approval process for a perceived “failure in developer attraction.”

In order for the Optimism Collective to achieve its vision, it needs ways to attract and fund aligned talent and projects. The Mission proposal process - which is a new governance experiment - could potentially fulfill this need. Although allowing Mission proposals from a broad and diverse community risks a loss of focus, tying these Missions to Collective Intents helps mitigate this risk. Further, the openness of the Mission proposal process may spur greater innovation than would a more closed process.

As acknowledged by Optimism, the Mission proposal process is an experiment that will require further refinement. In fact, there is already a critique of the work burden that reviewing Missions put on delegates, as well as a concern that the process gives preference to teams that can market their project well. However, as the Collective continues to refine the process, it will likely become a powerful tool for the Collective’s progression, as well as potentially a model for the rest of the DAO ecosystem.

Optimism is well known for its development of the OP Mainnet, an optimistic rollup designed to help scale the Ethereum network. However, in addition to being a pioneer in Ethereum layer 2 solutions, Optimism is also a leader when it comes to innovative community incentivization and public goods development.  In particular, Optimism stands out for its “retroactive public goods funding” system that rewards a broad swath of contributors for their impact to the network. In order to direct the community’s contributions, the Optimism Foundation formed the Optimism Collective - a bicameral DAO - with a focus on “working together to reward public goods and build a sustainable future for Ethereum.” Imbued in the Collective’s constitution is a “commitment to experimentation” with how best to structure the governance and work of the “band of companies, communities, and citizens” that make up the Collective.

Functionally, the work of the Optimism Collective is organized in discrete periods called “Seasons.” At the start of each season, the Optimism Foundation typically proposes a new experiment, the Collective tries it and, at the end of the season, the Collective reflects and adjusts the process for the next one. In the current season, Season 4, the Optimism Foundation proposed four Collective Intents meant to guide the community’s contributions and a new grant process for projects rewarding contributors.

As part of this new grant process, teams (known as Alliances) propose Missions (short-term projects) aligned with one of the Collective Intents and request a certain amount of OP (Optimism’s token). Over 50 Mission Proposals were submitted, and of those, 31 Missions moved on to be considered for funding.

Which Missions receive funding will be decided by OP delegates through an approval voting process (explained below). Since each Intent has a separate budget, the Missions are separated by the Intent they are aiming to fulfill. Below we list each Intent, its budget, as well as its number of proposed Missions.

If you hold OP tokens, click each Intent to vote on Boardroom. Note: Intent 2 is not listed as its budget is allocated through a separate process.

• Intent 1: Progress Towards Technical Decentralization

  • Budget: 1,000,000 OP tokens

  • 14 proposed Missions

• Intent 3: Spread Awareness of the Optimistic Vision

  • Budget: 1,000,000 OP tokens

  • 11 Proposed Missions

• Intent 4: Governance Accessibility

  • Budget: 3,000,000 OP tokens

  • 6 Proposed Missions

In order to qualify for funding, Alliances must plan to finish their Mission before the end of the season (September 20), and Alliances must not request funding beyond their Collective Trust Tier.

The Mission process is as follows:

1. Alliances propose a draft of their Mission on the forum

2. Missions must receive approval from at least four delegates with greater than .25% of the total voting power on the forum

3. Once approval is received on the forum, all approved Missions will be considered by delegates in on-chain approval voting

4. Missions will receive funding from most approvals to least approvals until the budget of the Intent runs out

5. In order to qualify for funding, Missions must receive 51% of quorum in approvals (greater than ~5.9M OP)

This process is subject to change in future seasons.

Currently, the Missions are in the on-chain phase of voting. Voting will end on Wednesday July 12 at 22:00 UTC.

Visit Optimism’s proposal page on Boardroom.

Missions have been proposed by a diverse group of teams, ranging from well-established organizations to independent creators. The Mission process itself was developed by the Optimism Foundation.

Overall, the Optimism Collective appears to view the Mission process as a positive development. The announcement received mostly positive feedback in the forum, and each intent’s budget was previously approved by delegates through on-chain voting. Further, nearly 3/5 of all proposed Missions were approved for on-chain voting, and delegates and community members have shown excitement in the forum for several Missions.

Although each individual Mission has its own critiques and comments, a common theme among Mission opposition has been concerns over the size of the Missions’ proposed budgets. This concern has been frequently cited by delegates refusing to approve Missions. Further, a community member criticized the Mission approval process for a perceived “failure in developer attraction.”

In order for the Optimism Collective to achieve its vision, it needs ways to attract and fund aligned talent and projects. The Mission proposal process - which is a new governance experiment - could potentially fulfill this need. Although allowing Mission proposals from a broad and diverse community risks a loss of focus, tying these Missions to Collective Intents helps mitigate this risk. Further, the openness of the Mission proposal process may spur greater innovation than would a more closed process.

As acknowledged by Optimism, the Mission proposal process is an experiment that will require further refinement. In fact, there is already a critique of the work burden that reviewing Missions put on delegates, as well as a concern that the process gives preference to teams that can market their project well. However, as the Collective continues to refine the process, it will likely become a powerful tool for the Collective’s progression, as well as potentially a model for the rest of the DAO ecosystem.