Optimism “Intentions” Campaign Retroactive Funding - Multisig Distribution

Governance
1

Title: Optimism “Intentions” Campaign Retroactive Funding - Multisig Distribution
Authors: Rowan, Links, Jengajojo, Aboveaveragejoe, Icedcool, Senad
Date: 14 November 2024

Summary

The Multisig members acknowledge the difficult and sensitive nature of this decision and have made every effort to uphold the Multisig’s mandate. Compensation was not distributed by default; only contributors or groups with clear and meaningful efforts beyond the original requirements of the “Intents” campaign have received funding.

Background

There has been ongoing discussion and conflicting perspectives about the OP funding (tlOP) disbursed to the DAO’s Vault as a form of compensation for contribution and participation by specific DAO groups in the Optimism Collective’s “Intents” campaign in August of 2023.

The Multisig has the mandate to “work to ensure the perpetuity of the DAO’s existence in alignment with the DAO’s mission, vision, and values”. In accordance with this mandate, and in the context of real and perceived misuse of the DAO’s brand and reputation, and prior questionable allocation of DAO resources as compensation, members of the Multisig chose to approve only some tlOP transactions.

Some argue that the original agreement should be honored and all parties duly compensated, while others argue for a more nuanced approach where payments should be considered on a case-by-case basis, evaluated against the quality of work provided against any compensation already distributed to contributors, whether by the DAO ($BANK) or the Optimism Collective (RPGF).

For additional context on some of the perspectives held by community members please see:

  1. Funding our shared future [OP Distribution]

  2. Proposal to Disburse OP Received for Optimism 2023 Collective Intents Campaign

  3. BA Forum Post

  4. OP Forum Post

Multisig Decision

The Multisig members have not distributed any compensation by default. This OP forum post specified that certain individuals would receive funds, while the bulk would be received by BanklessDAO. As the funds were received by the Multisig, subsequent distribution within the DAO falls under the Multisig, subject to the DAO’s governance structure.

Some groups that participated in the Optimism Collective’s “Intentions” campaign received additional compensation, beyond what has already been provided either via $BANK or Optimism’s Retroactive Public Goods Funding (RPGF), based on clear and meaningful contributions to the DAO and the ecosystem in their general efforts, beyond what was expected in the “Intentions” campaign.

The Multisig members recognize they are not in a position to reliably evaluate the quality of content across all of the languages represented in this campaign. As such, members chose to approve compensation transactions based on the metrics indicated above.

Overall, based on the information available, Multisig members believe that contributors have been adequately compensated for their efforts in the form of $BANK or RPGF, and any additional compensation distributed is based on clear and meaningful contributions outside of the original expectations or requirements of the “Intentions” campaign.

The remainder of the funds received by the DAO pertaining to the “Intentions” campaign will be kept in the DAO’s Vault as the Multisig members believe that the retained funds will be best used for the future of this community. None of the Multisig members will benefit from this retention of these funds.

2 Likes
2

It’s great to see a post addressing this issue, and I have some further questions:

  • Which project teams/contributors have missed out on receiving the OP designated by the campaign brief?
  • How much OP is the Multisig choosing to retain?
  • Is the DAO’s OP still delegated to DAOplomats?
  • If yes, isn’t this matter a conflict of interest for at least one Multisig member?

I also have questions relating to some of the assertions in this post:

only contributors or groups with clear and meaningful efforts beyond the original requirements of the “Intents” campaign have received funding.

Why? The funding in question was specifically allocated for efforts within the Intents campaign.

Some argue that the original agreement should be honored and all parties duly compensated, while others argue for a more nuanced approach

Does this refer to some members of the Multisig, or some members of the community? I’m interested in whether the Multisig has arrived at a unanimous decision here. I’m curious, given that most Multisig members have been silent on the topic in Discord, about whether there’s been ongoing discussion and/or evidence gathering for all these months and you’ve only just come to a shared decision?

This OP forum post specified that certain individuals would receive funds, while the bulk would be received by BanklessDAO.

It’s disingenuous to make this statement because even the funds specified for certain individuals had to be sent to the DAO Vault. Even if various project teams aren’t named in the ‘Breakdown of Mission budget request’, it was clear to everyone involved, including the campaign initiator who is part of the Multisig, which org teams were responsible for delivering those items. From memory, there was an amount on the internal budget sheet allocated for the DAO Vault, but all the rest was accounted for.

Some groups that participated in the Optimism Collective’s “Intentions” campaign received additional compensation, beyond what has already been provided either via $BANK or Optimism’s Retroactive Public Goods Funding (RPGF), based on clear and meaningful contributions to the DAO and the ecosystem in their general efforts, beyond what was expected in the “Intentions” campaign.

What compensation ‘beyond BANK or RPGF’ are you referring to? Or do you mean that the additional compensation was in the form of BANK or RPGF?
If the latter, then yes, maybe they received RPGF. As far as I know, the RPGF application asks for details about any other funding received from Optimism, so any group who received RPGF had to make that distinction in the RPGF application and was voted for by OP Citizens for contributions unrelated to the Intents campaign. Isn’t that the case?

I was sent BANK for my writing, editing, and design work on the Intents campaign outputs by Bankless Publishing. The decision about whether to allocate BANK was up to each team contributing to the campaign and was never considered as a mechanism for deciding on OP distribution. We’re all well aware that BANK’s value was primarily as a governance token and is not comparable to OP’s monetary value.

The Multisig members recognize they are not in a position to reliably evaluate the quality of content across all of the languages represented in this campaign. As such, members chose to approve compensation transactions based on the metrics indicated above.

What metrics? I can’t see any.

Multisig members believe that contributors have been adequately compensated for their efforts in the form of $BANK or RPGF, and any additional compensation distributed is based on clear and meaningful contributions outside of the original expectations or requirements of the “Intentions” campaign.

What does this mean? What are these clear and meaningful contributions outside of the campaign and why are they relevant to disbursement of OP that was specifically intended for the campaign?

None of the Multisig members will benefit from this retention of these funds.

I return to my question above, which is about whether the DAO’s OP is still delegated to DAOplomats, and if so, whether the retained amount will supplement that.
While it may not be a direct benefit, I see this as a conflict which is why I asked whether the decision was unanimous.

I’d appreciate responses to my questions regardless of whether the Multisig team intends to re-engage with the disbursement question. If I have misunderstood any aspects of the process or what was produced/not produced I apologise, but as a member of the Intents campaign team who has received the OP allocated to me, I am struggling with the idea that others have been quite severely short-changed.

Thank you.

7 Likes
3

This is mostly a regurgitation of the same reasons Jengajojo gave in his proposal for which the Community unanimously rejected.

I share Trewkat’s sentiments and would like to also get answers to the questions she has posed.

2 Likes
4

It’s interesting to see this forum post from the multi-sig, especially given that, from all indications, there were no meetings, calls, or active discussions between the multi-sig and the affected projects/teams. Furthermore, I urge the multi-sig to provide clear and direct answers to the important questions raised by Trewkat.

5

I also want ask whether any member of this decision making committee approached anyone (op rejected ones by multisig) who contributed to the campaign for clarification. No clarification asked from me. I worked three months for this campaign.
How is this democratic?

6

Whilst I’m not privy to the details, from a dispute resolution point of view, the different issues need to be separated, resolving down to questions of facts and mutually agreed process to bring forth an acceptable compromise.

  1. Is there a legally binding agreement?
  • was there a meeting of minds?
  • was it sufficiently documented (or incomplete)
  • was the intervening event foreseeable
  1. Causation
  • contribution to the harm
  • mistakes/errors which may void parts of any agreement
  • excuses/justifications which may modify any settlement
  1. What is “fair”
  • identification of the grievance (where are remaining differences)
  • balance of interests & compelled performance
  • are there equitable remedies outside the conceived agreement

Try to avoid complications by bargaining in good faith and progressively narrowing differences.

17317280836883883543517713959402
17317280836883883543517713959402249×192 42 KB

2 Likes
7

As a Bankless Bengali who has been actively involved in the “Intentions” campaign, including running a podcast, delivering translations, and fulfilling all my responsibilities on time, I strongly disagree with the Multisig’s stance on the distribution of funds. Here’s why:

Clear and Timely Contributions Were Made -I, along with other contributors, delivered high-quality work within the agreed timelines. We didn’t rely on AI-generated content, and we followed the specific requirements outlined for the campaign. As contributors, we fulfilled our roles with professionalism and dedication. Yet, despite this, our compensation is being withheld or denied, while others who may not have contributed as effectively have received their share. This disparity is unjust.
2. The Multisig has taken it upon themselves to audit and approve payments without any request or mandate from the contributors. We did not ask for an audit, and we did not agree to having someone evaluate our work in such a manner. The Multisig is acting outside the scope of what was originally agreed upon. It is not their place to decide whether our contributions are “clear and meaningful” based on their subjective interpretations.

3 Mismanagement of Funds - The Multisig’s retention of the funds for “future use” is troubling. The funds belong to the contributors, and retaining them without clear justification is a breach of trust. The community’s governance structure was established to ensure fairness and transparency in fund distribution. The Multisig’s decision to withhold compensation contradicts this framework and has caused unnecessary frustration.
4 - Governance and Accountability - The DAO’s governance structure was supposed to empower contributors and provide transparency in decision-making. The Multisig’s actions in withholding funds without clear accountability are a failure of governance. If they believe certain contributions don’t meet the required standards, that should be discussed openly with the community, not unilaterally decided behind closed doors. We demand our tokens because we’ve earned them, and our work has contributed to the success of the campaign.

In conclusion, the Multisig’s refusal to distribute compensation fairly and their retention of funds without clear justification is unacceptable. We demand the compensation we rightfully deserve, and we call for a more transparent, accountable, and inclusive decision-making process going forward.

2 Likes
8

In order to be fully satisfied with the proposal presented above a few things need to be in play:

  1. (I’m going to lighten this up from what I initially was thinking to put) - one multi sig member was apart of the following:
  • the multisig
  • Daoplomats (which has OP delegated I guess)
  • A proposal that was rejected that wanted to hold the OP funds.
  • the elephant in the room that I shall not mention that may have kicked off a lot of the issues with the former DAO as well.

This seems like a conflict of interest. That doesn’t bode well.

  1. There are missing metrics surrounding the reason for rejection. I do not see the metrics in the propsial. This might be helpful for some folks to understand why they were not recipients of funding.

  2. The DAO itself is technically no longer banklessdao. This may have been a miss to try and get this cleared up first before going forward with BFD.

  3. This sounds like the conversations may have not been transparent. Make those conversations transparent before going forward with a position.

I have seen instances of subpar work from subsects of folks who are involved in this situation so while I can understand the need to hold funds, it’s getting worse by the day making decisions that have gone against the will of the DAO.

It seems like there was a vote objecting to the holding of funds. And there was a vote disbursing funds. If there had been a problem, it’s possible that it would have needed to be solved way before now.

The multisig is made of brilliant minds I believe. I don’t think this needs to be the end of this needs to be a stain on what is to come with the new DAO.

I wonder if you can instead hold a meeting with folks that can speak for each group. @thinkDecade, @Studio07 , @estha000 , and others, and come to an agreement one what each side is willing to offer first, if you are unwilling to pay out. Perhaps the folks who are owed payment may be willing to accept an offer instead of nothing.

(And I read the original DAO proposal with OP, it may have been a miss on that part to not specify everyone who was going to receive payment. That may be problem #1… (I saw a few folks commenting on the amount being too steep) )

This may be a practice on learning how to better itemize proposals and invoices but nevermind that for now.

Good luck all!

2 Likes
9

Very much open for clarification and any proof to be submitted by my end.

I am happy that Ukraine node whose transaction was rejected earlier along with us got the fund three days back.

We all did equal amount of work and would like to know from multi sig what we miss in this to be rejected.

Individual clarification of each node is one best way to sort this.

1 Like
10

Hi @Trewkat, please see my answers below. I don’t speak for the entire multisig but am doing my best to reflect their (consensus-based) intentions and perspective. I’ve tried to specify where I am expressly not representing other members of the multisig, and I believe they will provide clarification where/if necessary.

To the best of my knowledge:
Pidgin Parlour
Bankless Africa
Bankless Adria
Bankless Bengali
Bankless Malayalam
Bankless Tamil
Bankless Turkish

Based on the groups that did not receive OP as indicated above: 27,210 OP.

I can’t respond to this with certainty. The OP sent to the DAO Vault as part of this OP campaign remains there, and to my knowledge will not be sent to a DAOplomats-managed wallet.

Though others may see it differently, the current community has an ambiguous relationship with the DAOPlomats group and I think there would need to be some clarification of that relationship and any assumed delegation, at this point, before any assets are transferred. Keep in mind this is my perspective and I don’t necessarily speak for the entire multisig in this statement.

I honestly can’t answer this question because I don’t know the current state of the relationship between this community and DAOPlomats. If you feel there is a risk here, I would be happy to take coordinated action with you to clarify.

Consensus on the multisig was that most contributors to this campaign have been effectively compensated for their efforts either in the form of BANK or RPGF, understanding that there is likely some discrepancy in perspective about the purpose or intent of Optimism’s RPGF distribution. As representatives of BanklessDAO (at the time), groups and individuals were effectively acting on behalf of, and in some cases, greatly and disproportionately benefiting from, the brand.

Both. Though I am careful to speak on behalf of anyone, there are individuals outside of the multisig that have expressed desire for a more nuanced approach, and are perhaps more reluctant to speak out given the contentious nature of the subject. The “unanimous” outcome of the related tlBANK vote is not a reflection of unanimity within the community, as many voters were those with a vested interest in the outcome.

The multisig attempted to adhere to its mandate, while trying to assess and include Community sentiment in its decision.

It’s also my understanding that there was an amount on the internal budget allocated for the DAO Vault, while the rest of the distribution was accounted for. This statement was not intended to be disingenuous, but to highlight sources of information that the multisig took into consideration. As I understand it, your argument stems from a desire to adhere to the original agreement, as reflected by budget documents. While entirely valid, consensus of the multisig was that such an approach would contravene its mandate.

Here the multisig is referring to tlOP. The perspective reflecting consensus of the multisig was that all individuals and groups involved in the campaign had received compensation in the form of $BANK or RPGF, or both, prior to the distribution of tlOP. As such, tlOP was considered additional compensation.

It is the multisig’s understanding that, while transparent, Optimism’s distribution of RPGF was based on high-level assessments and recipients were not necessarily incentivized to honestly distinguish contributions unrelated to the Intents campaign.

There has been a long-standing issue about the collective understanding for the purpose of $BANK and any compensation it represents monetarily or otherwise. At the time of distribution, $BANK was valued higher than it is now and recipients were free to sell, as often happened, instead of using it for the purposes of governance. While while many recognize the limited value of $BANK beyond a governance token at this point in time, it is misleading to suggest that this was always the case.

The metrics referred to here are “clear and meaningful contributions outside of the original expectations or requirements of the “Intentions” campaign.” The multisig evaluated contributions of this definition as objectively as possible.

I think this was answered in my response so far but if not, please let me know and I can try to clarify.

As I stated above, I am not personally aware of any standing relationship that the multisig would necessarily adhere to with DAOPlomats without due discourse and community input. I personally agree that clarification of this relationship could benefit the community.

2 Likes
11

I stand with this “evaluated against the quality of work provided against any compensation already distributed to contributors”

12

Can you (or the groups involved) help me understand how those payments broke down?

Was it explicit that they have received bank? Or is it inferred.

(Can anyone help make that part explicit? I know @Trewkat stated that she received bank, but I’m curious if others have, and whether there was a miscommunication behind the previous BANK/OP payments.)

Thanks for your help.

It sounds like some clarity may be helpful with respect to how these previous payments occured. Which may help the issues behind this.

13

Dear Rowan,
Just wanted to clarify this. Bankless tamil didn’t recieve any funding through rpgf round. We and the Chinese node submitted application along with IMN with the knowledge of Jenga who was then leading IMN.

14

Also, what’ there much to hold a meeting to discuss this. A fair conclusion can be made only if you hear us too. A meeting with the group give an opportunity for us to tell what we needs to tell.
Ghosting is what is happening now. Can’t get a reply from Jenga now who was so active once.

I know I have worked four months for this campaign fair and square. It is this belief that make me write here.

I am able to prove this if you give me an opportunity.
But denying that is unfair.

15

Again the assumption that projects received BANK for the campaign is false and misleading.

BanklessDAO/BlackflagDAO did not allocate funding to projects for the campaign.

If any project paid campaign contributors BANK, it was from that projects treasury specifically.

Bankless Africa for example had not received funding from bDAO/bfDAO for sometime so we did not have enough BANK in our treasury. So contributors to the campaign did their work in anticipation of OP payment for which the Grant was approved for. BANKLESS AFRICA CONTRIBUTORS DID NOT RECEIVE ANY BANK PAYMENT.

16

@thinkDecade

Is it because of the way the OP grant was written?

All I saw with that is that abidemi was supposed to be paid.

Is there another doc that further itemizes payments?

17

Perhaps if there is a way to clarify the deficiencies.

18

Is this explicit anywhere?

There’s a lot of fogginess through the process that could use some clearing.

I know there was the proposal that went to snapshot and was voted for, but I guess maybe if others broke down what they were supposed to be paid that could help. I suppose I’ll read your BA post again. I don’t remember seeing it there.

19

Here’s BA post addressing MS concerns.

here’s the breakdown as presented to Optimism

image
image921×1147 48.8 KB

20

I am starting to see a clear picture.

I suggest that you could potentially have a meet with the multisig, and propose an agreement to meet in the middle and settle on an amount. There are a few legal eagles bopping around, perhaps they can help mediate.