Introduction
This document serves two interconnected purposes: to provide comprehensive rationale supporting our appeal to the Optimism Foundation, and to share insights from our experience that could help improve future RetroFunding rounds.
Our approved application for Optimism Fractal Events explicitly excludes significant contributions from our teams, particularly technical infrastructure development and additional governance events. We respectfully request permission to update this application to include related work from three declined applications: Optimystics Tools, Eden Fractal Events, and Optimism Town Hall + RetroPitches.
While details of our specific request are provided in the Appeal to the Foundation forum post, this document elaborates why merging these applications is both reasonable and vital - not just for our contributors, but for the Collective's broader mission of rewarding impact fairly.
Update: A more concise overview of this situation can be found in a newer forum post, Recognizing Impact: Critical Context for RetroFunding Reviewers and Governance Participants.
Context and Stakes
Recent structural changes to RetroFunding Round 6 have created unintended challenges for teams with diverse contributions. Our situation exemplifies these challenges: multiple teams working across different aspects of governance improvement have had most of their impact overlooked due to application constraints and review process limitations.
Each of our projects has demonstrated clear impact through different but complementary approaches:
- Technical infrastructure enabling governance experimentation
- Educational content advancing collective understanding
- Community events fostering collaboration and implementation
- Novel tools for measuring and rewarding contributions
This appeal comes at a critical juncture for our contributors. Despite receiving only 30,000 OP total from RetroPGF Round 3 (split among four people), our teams have volunteered countless hours over the past year to build critical infrastructure and processes for the Collective. Multiple full-time contributors have made substantial personal sacrifices based on the axiom that impact equals profit.
The stakes extend beyond our team - this case highlights opportunities to improve how the Collective evaluates and rewards impact. By examining these challenges now, we can help ensure future rounds better recognize valuable contributions while maintaining high standards. Our experience offers concrete insights for strengthening the connection between demonstrated impact and fair compensation.
Document Overview
The following sections examine our appeal's rationale from multiple angles:
- Impact of Structural Changes: How RetroFunding Round 6 design modifications created specific challenges for evaluating diverse contributions
- Supporting Teams and Contributors: Overview of the technical and events teams whose work these applications represent
- Excluded Project Contributions: Analysis of each project's distinct contributions, why they don't overlap, and how they’re now excluded
- Review Process Challenges: Documentation of reviewers’ misunderstanding the application review process rules/procedures, impact assessment, and technical issues
- Critical Recognition of Community Contributions: Why proper evaluation of contributors' work is vital for the Collective
- Benefits for the Collective: How approving this appeal serves both immediate fairness and long-term governance evolution
Rather than requesting special treatment, we seek the opportunity for badge holders to evaluate our complete contributions fairly. The already-approved application demonstrates the value we've created. We're simply asking to present the full scope of related but distinct work that has benefited the Collective.
Table of Contents
- Introduction
- Context and Stakes
- Document Overview
- Project Documentation
- 1. Impact of Recent RetroFunding Structural Changes
- Recent Structural Changes
- Impact on Application Strategy
- 2. Supporting Teams and Contributors
- Technical Development Team
- Events Facilitation Team
- Application Coordination Context
- 3. Excluded Project Contributions
- Technical Infrastructure Development
- Additional Governance Events
- Understanding Impact vs Overlap
- 4. Review Process Challenges
- Misinterpretation of Round Rules
- Overlooked Documentation and Evidence
- Technical Issues Encountered
- Process Improvement Opportunities
- 5. Critical Recognition of Community Contributions
- Sustainability Challenges and Team Impact
- Personal Responsibility and Team Recognition
- Systemic Concerns and Opportunities
- 6. Benefits to the Optimism Collective
- Sustaining Essential Infrastructure
- Collaboration and Implementation
- Opportunity for Governance Evolution
- Conclusion
Project Documentation
Before delving into the rationale for our appeal, we'd like to provide context by sharing links to the relevant applications and impact metrics. This information forms the foundation of our request and demonstrates the breadth of our contributions to the Optimism ecosystem.
Here are the links to each project's documentation:
Optimism Fractal Respect Games
Our core initiative facilitating weekly governance contribution measurement and collaboration:
- Over 43 events hosted with 50+ unique contributors engaging in onchain governance experimentation
Optimystics Tools
Technical infrastructure enabling decentralized governance processes across multiple communities:
- Critical governance tooling enabling ~1500 onchain impact measurements for reputation and identity system
Eden Fractal Events
Deep-dive educational sessions advancing fractal governance understanding and implementation
- 37 events fostering governance innovation and cross-ecosystem collaboration for critical governance processes
Optimism Town Hall + RetroPitches
Community forums pioneering agenda setting processes and impact evaluation experiments enhancing RetroFunding
- 17 governance forums and 3 pilot RetroPitches events for improving public goods funding with 15+ RetroPGF applicants and badgeholders
For additional context about our complete body of work, you can visit our Projects and Funding page, which was linked near the top of each application to provide clarity about how each of these projects related to each other. You ca find a more detailed high level overview of each project and its impact in the newer forum post, Recognizing Impact: Critical Context for RetroFunding Reviewers and Governance Participants.
1. Impact of Recent RetroFunding Structural Changes
Recent Structural Changes
Several significant changes to RetroFunding Round 6 have created unintended challenges for teams with diverse contributions:
- Introduction of strict categories (separating Governance Leadership from Tooling and Infrastructure), requiring separation of related work streams
- Shift to project-based applications, instead of being able to apply as an organization as in Round 3
- Two-week application window limiting coordination among distributed teams
- Limited opportunities for feedback during review and appeal processes
- Evaluation limited to impact since RetroPGF 3, rather than lifetime impact for the Collective
We understand and appreciate the rationale behind many of these structural changes. Our concern is primarily ensuring that all valuable contributions can be properly evaluated, especially when work spans multiple categories or involves different types of impact.
Impact on Application Strategy
With limited time to determine the best approach under the new structure, we carefully considered submitting just one or two applications. However, the category requirements and our diverse work streams led us to separate our contributions:
- Event facilitation and community building (Governance Leadership category)
- Technical infrastructure development (Infrastructure & Tooling category)
- Different community events and tools, each with distinct:
- Purposes and goals
- Target audiences
- Types of impact
- Branding and positioning
This separation created particular challenges for our integrated technical and community initiatives. For example, the current structure makes it difficult for teams to have their development work recognized when they both build and implement governance tools. The shift to evaluating only recent impact also affected our application strategy - some team members who had planned to apply in future rounds based on cumulative impact needed to reconsider given the uncertainty of how lifetime impact might be valued going forward.
Had the structure remained similar to RetroPGF Round 3, we probably would have submitted one comprehensive application as we did last year. While Optimism Fractal Respect Game Events is one of our main initiatives, it represents only a portion of our total contributions and impact. The approved application explicitly excludes our other work, meaning the majority of our contributions and impact over the past year have been overlooked.
2. Supporting Teams and Contributors
Several reviewers noted that applications came from a single person. To provide clarity, this section outlines the teams and individuals whose contributions these applications aim to recognize, and whose continued work requires sustainable support:
Technical Development Team
- One full-time developer maintaining core infrastructure for the entire year
- Three additional developers contributing several months each on a part-time or full-time basis
- Built essential tooling used across multiple communities
- Mostly volunteer work with minimal compensation
Events Facilitation Team
- Two full-time contributors focused on hosting, organizing and producing events
- Two part-time contributors supporting community operations
- Collectively hosted ~60 governance-focused events across three initiatives
- Sustained through personal commitment to the Collective's mission
Application Coordination Context
In RetroPGF Round 3, four team members applied together under one application.
This year's structural changes necessitated separate applications. Due to team members' preferences regarding grant applications and limited coordination time in our decentralized team, they requested I submit applications on their behalf, with funds to be distributed based on contributions. This maintained cohesion while respecting preferences and constraints. I can provide more details about these contributors and link to each of their contributions upon request.
These teams have demonstrated remarkable dedication, with many members working full-time for over a year with minimal funding. Their efforts have produced mature, tested infrastructure ready for widespread adoption - but maintaining this momentum requires sustainable support. More details about the vital importance of fairly evaluating the impact of these volunteer contributors is provided below in the section about Critical Recognition of Community Contributions.
3. Excluded Project Contributions
While our approved application for Optimism Fractal Events has created valuable impact, it explicitly excludes several other major contributions that required an enormous amount of time and effort over the past year. Below we outline these distinct work streams and explain why they deserve to be considered in RetroFunding Round 6.
Technical Infrastructure Development
Building software infrastructure and facilitating community events are entirely different activities requiring different skill sets and teams. Our Optimystics Tools application represents fundamentally different work:
- Development and maintenance of core smart contracts and open-source software
- Built by dedicated development team with specialized technical skills
- Developed reusable infrastructure any community can adopt
- Currently excluded despite enabling all event-based contributions
The approved Optimism Fractal Respect Games Events application explicitly states it covers only "hosting, promoting, organizing, and producing of respect game events" and specifically notes that development work is covered in a separate application. Since the application explicitly excludes the tools and Optimism and is in the governance leadership category, I’m concerned reviewers will likely not consider it as recognition for development work.
Additional Governance Events
Beyond Optimism Fractal events, we've created impact through distinct event series:
- Eden Fractal: ~37 educational deep-dive events on governance innovation
- Optimism Town Hall: ~20 community forums on Collective governance
- RetroPitches: 3x pilot programs for impact evaluation
- Each series serves unique purposes and audiences
- Currently ~60 events not being counted at all
The Optimism Fractal Events application explicitly excludes these other events, noting they have separate applications. While sharing some high-level goals, each event series creates unique types of impact through different methods.
Understanding Impact vs Overlap
Several reviewers noted difficulty differentiating between our projects' specific impacts. This is somewhat understandable as we're building novel governance processes that aren't yet widely recognized in the ecosystem. However:
- Each project's unique contributions and impact are detailed in their respective impact pages:
- Contributing to common causes (like RetroFunding or governance) in different ways doesn't constitute overlap
- Many approved projects support similar goals through different means
- Badge holders should have the opportunity to evaluate each project's distinct impact
- Excluding projects entirely due to perceived similarity prevents fair evaluation
By merging these contributions into one application, badge holders can properly assess the unique value created by each initiative while recognizing their complementary nature. Rather than having reviewers make early judgments about overlap, this approach allows the full community to evaluate each project's specific impact.
4. Review Process Challenges
While we respect the difficulty of evaluating novel governance approaches, several concerning patterns emerged during review that prevented fair consideration of our work. The limited timeframe for feedback during both initial review and appeals meant these issues couldn't be addressed before decisions were finalized. Below we outline specific examples where reviewers either misinterpreted round rules or overlooked key information.
Misinterpretation of Round Rules
Several reviewers cited reasons for rejection that directly contradict the documented rules and guidelines:
- Multiple project applications: Applications were declined simply for being from the same person, despite rules explicitly allowing multiple applications for non-overlapping work. Other applicants with multiple projects were approved.
- Education in Governance Leadership: Events with educational components were incorrectly deemed ineligible, though the rules only exclude educational content from the Infrastructure & Tooling category. Many approved projects include governance education.
- Perceived overlap: Applications were declined as duplicates without examining the distinct methods of work and impact creation, even though contributing to common causes through different means is explicitly allowed.
- Future Promises: One reviewer remarked that our statement, ‘Our tools have provided models and insights that could enhance various governance processes’ implies a future promise, which is factually incorrect.
- Advertising: One reviewer declined our application on the basis of it being advertising, even though the application review process document explicitly defined advertising as promoting an NFT or token sale—something our project had no involvement in whatsoever.
- Misreading Applications: One reviewer incorrectly stated the Optimism Town Hall application included the Respect Games app, citing this as a reason for rejection. Another reviewer echoed this decision. However, the Respect Games app was not mentioned at all in the Town Hall application or its linked impact page, nor has it been a significant topic in these events.
Overlooked Documentation and Evidence
Multiple reviewers appeared to make decisions without fully reviewing provided materials:
- Impact metrics: One reviewer stated there were no metrics demonstrating support for grants processes, when detailed metrics were clearly provided in both impact and appeal documentation.
- Stakeholder verification: Another claimed no examples of key stakeholders using the tools, despite multiple documented cases in impact statements.
- Eligibility rationale: Clear explanations of how projects facilitated critical governance processes were provided but not addressed. Some reviewers offered no specific feedback beyond vague statements like the application "does not meet criteria"
Technical Issues Encountered
During the RetroFunding application and appeal process, I encountered several technical challenges:
- Unable to add more than one link to the application
- Couldn't add a note about project funding and its source
- Difficulty submitting an appeal due to a lack of reviewers
These issues were time-consuming to troubleshoot and resolve. Despite examining all four of my applications thoroughly, I couldn't locate certain features that I later discovered were available to other applicants. When seeking clarification on Discord, I received a partial response that didn't address all my questions three days later
The time spent dealing with these technical problems could have been better utilized for other important tasks, such as raising awareness about our work or curating our impact. While some issues were resolved relatively quickly, the overall experience highlighted areas for improvement in the application process.
For future rounds, I recommend providing clearer instructions, offering more robust technical support, and ensuring consistent features across all applications. These enhancements would significantly improve the applicant experience. Screenshots are provided below for reference.
Process Improvement Opportunities
The brevity and quality of some review responses - including minimal text, spelling errors, and lack of specific rationale - suggests potential issues with reviewer incentives and accountability. While we understand the challenges of evaluating many applications in a limited time, consistently thorough review is crucial for fair assessment.
We're prepared to provide detailed responses to each reviewer comment and additional documentation as needed. Our goal isn't to criticize but to help improve the process so novel approaches to governance can be better understood and evaluated fairly in future rounds.
This experience highlights how the limited feedback opportunities during initial review and appeals, combined with the compressed timeline, can lead to misunderstandings having outsized impact. A more iterative review process with opportunities for clarification could help ensure innovative but unfamiliar approaches receive proper consideration.
5. Critical Recognition of Community Contributions
Sustainability Challenges and Team Impact
The decision to decline three of our four applications creates immediate challenges for our contributors. Most of our team members have been working almost exclusively on Optimism for the past year, making substantial career and financial decisions based on the Collective's promise that impact equals profit. The only funding received was a 30,000 OP grant from RetroPGF Round 3 split among four people - while appreciated, this modest support cannot sustain continued development.
Our limited runway exemplifies a broader challenge: most teams cannot volunteer full-time for a year without sustainable support. When RetroFunding Round 6 was announced in March, we strategically shifted focus toward governance, launching new initiatives and aligning all projects with governance objectives. This pivot represented a significant commitment based on the Collective's stated values.
Personal Responsibility and Team Recognition
As the person who created these applications on behalf of our contributors, I feel an enormous responsibility to ensure their work is fairly evaluated. Our team members trusted in the Collective's vision enough to dedicate countless hours developing infrastructure that has received strong praise from the community. It's particularly disheartening to see their contributions potentially go unrecognized while more established projects with far smaller contributions and arguably much less impact are approved.
Systemic Concerns and Opportunities
The current situation raises several important considerations:
- Many contributors volunteered substantial time assuming impact would eventually be rewarded
- The shift to only count the past year's contributions means critical work may never be evaluated
- Novel approaches to governance face higher barriers despite creating significant value
- Compressed review timelines make it difficult for reviewers to understand new models
- Current processes may unintentionally favor more established projects over innovations
This isn't about criticizing specific decisions, but rather highlighting how the Collective can better support emerging contributors. Our experience demonstrates the need for:
- More accessible evaluation processes for novel governance approaches
- Sustainable pathways for teams building long-term infrastructure
- Better alignment between stated values and recognition systems
- Clear opportunities for new contributors to establish themselves
6. Benefits to the Optimism Collective
Sustaining Essential Infrastructure
Our tools, processes and events are now mature after a year of intensive development. This infrastructure provides concrete solutions for:
- Impact evaluation methods for RetroFunding
- Community coordination and decision-making
- Governance participation and education
- Fair distribution of recognition and rewards
We invite you to explore our tools, events, and videos for details about this. We've written extensively about how these innovations can improve RetroFunding and governance processes. Upon request, we can provide detailed articles, videos, and resources demonstrating specific implementation approaches. However, this infrastructure requires consistent support to remain sustainable and maximize value for the Collective.
Collaboration and Implementation
We're eager to work more closely with the Collective to help solve these challenges. Our team has developed practical solutions for:
- Creating more accessible evaluation processes
- Building sustainable pathways for teams
- Improving alignment between impact and recognition
- Establishing clear opportunities for new contributors
We welcome collaboration with other public goods creators and governance leaders to implement these improvements. Our tools and processes are ready to scale, having been refined through extensive testing and community feedback.
Opportunity for Governance Evolution
Approving this appeal offers a chance to strengthen the Collective's governance. Many effective systems use multi-layered appeals with the principle of subsidiarity, allowing fair recourse at appropriate levels. As the Collective decentralizes, establishing precedent for handling appeals thoughtfully will become increasingly important. This case provides a low-risk opportunity to develop such processes:
- Updates an already-approved application
- Works within existing rules
- Informs future community-managed appeals
- Demonstrates commitment to fairness
By approving this request, the Collective can take an important step toward more robust and decentralized governance while ensuring fair evaluation of significant contributions. We're committed to supporting this evolution through our tools, experiences, and continued development of governance infrastructure.
Conclusion
This appeal comes at a critical juncture - with voting starting in less than one day, we understand the urgency and constraints. We would have reached out sooner, but only recently learned about the declined applications. Even now, our team continues supporting the Collective through initiatives like RetroPitches, RetroSeason, and RetroPolls to improve the RetroFunding process.
We're not asking for special treatment - simply the opportunity for badge holders to evaluate our team's complete impact fairly. The already-approved application demonstrates the value we've created. We're requesting permission to present the full scope of related but distinct contributions that have benefited the Collective.
This moment represents an important opportunity:
- For our contributors to receive fair consideration of their dedicated work
- For the Collective to strengthen its commitment to rewarding impact
- For governance processes to evolve toward greater inclusion and fairness
By approving this straightforward request to update an already-approved application, the Collective can take a meaningful step toward better recognition systems while ensuring novel approaches to governance receive proper evaluation.
I'm happy to provide any additional context, clarification, or resources that would be helpful in considering this appeal. Our team remains committed to supporting the Collective's growth and evolution, regardless of the outcome.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.
Best regards,
Dan Singjoy