Pairwise: Simplifying Choices, Amplifying Voices

Public Good Projects Discussion
1

Project Description and why it’s classified as a Public Good:

Pairwise is an open-source dapp that streamlines community decisions and aggregates these choices into clear recommendations. By converting subjective preferences into objective outcomes, Pairwise minimizes the cognitive burden of traditional voting. It stands as a decisive effort to redefine digital democracy.

How does it work?

Organizers can set up a space and initiate a vote, presenting users with a straightforward choice between two options. Instead of overwhelming users with myriad choices, Pairwise breaks it down: Is spending 10k on fireworks a good idea? Maybe. But when asked to choose between spending 10k on fireworks or food, the decision becomes clearer. By the end of the process, you’re left with a ranked list, complete with percentages, reflecting collective preferences. The underlying algorithm draws inspiration from the ELO system used in games like League of Legends. For a deeper dive into the algorithm, refer to the Colony paper.

How does it support Public Goods?

Pairwise, being free and open-source, stands as a public good, enhancing decision-making in public good DAOs and projects. It’s universally accessible and complements other governance tools.

781×524 169 KB

Use Cases:

  • Grant Proposals: For organizations swamped with grant requests, Pairwise streamlines prioritization by comparing potential impact and feasibility, optimizing funding allocation.

  • Community signaling: Beyond just voting, Pairwise offers decentralized curation.

  • User Research: DAOs can employ Pairwise for a playful “hot or not” style feedback on designs or features, capturing community preferences efficiently.

Video Demo

If holding ETH on a wallet can play with it and rank the best anime!

Main Project Funding Sources: It’s only being funded by grants

  • ENS Small grant Public Goods round 5 ( 1 ETH )
  • ENS Small grant Public Goods round 7 ( 1 ETH )
  • ENS Small grant Public Goods round 9 ( 1 ETH )
  • Gitcoin (1.5k USD )
  • Optimisms RPGF ( 7805.18 OP )
  • Optimisms grant ( 95K OP locked )
    • The allocated funds are not intended for this specific roadmap. However, elements of the operational proposal could potentially be repurposed, thereby conserving resources within the overall budget.
  • Dorahacks (0.64118904 BNB + 1000 USDT )

Seeking project-specific funding or funding for general operations:

Specific funding

Project Roadmap and Milestones (only for project-specific funding):

1256×1043 179 KB

Funding Request and Budget (only for project-specific funding):

We’re requesting $20,000 to successfully complete Milestones 1 and 2, producing a game-changing product. Pairwise It’s a step towards enabling digital democracy. The last three milestones focus on making it fully decentralized and establishing a public good space for communities to engage in governance.

Team Information, including backgrounds and roles:

  • @FreshelleT - Treasury and contract engagement
  • @markoprljic - Design lead. Head of Design and Business Developer at General Magic. “Magic Marko” is a top notch designer and has been practicing his art on web2 and web3 projects for over a decade.
  • @moe_nick - Project Manager. Products & Fintech Enthusiast. http://Giveth.io Product Manager, ex-MyDigipay, ex-Tadbirpardaz, ex- Finnotech
  • @pourcheriki - Developer. More info: Github Lead Front-End Developer. Cherik has been leading the front-end design on a variety of products and features in the Giveth Galaxy for the last 2 years.
  • @amin__dev - Developer. More info: Github Software Engineer/Developer/Architecture Lead Developer at Giveth
  • @VitorMarthendal - Magically supports cadCAD and general full-stack development for consumer-facing blockchain-based products: Github
  • @thegrifft - Advisor. Co-founder of Giveth, Commons Stack, General Magic, Dappnode
  • @mathsguy - Maths PhD (Category Theory, String Topology / CUNY), then worked on Ethereum, EthSwarm & Colony. Now playing around with math animations using Manim and learning theoretical CS. Wrote the original paper Pairwise is based on.
  • @kronosapiens - Programmer-at-arms @joinColony, prev. ML @Foursquare Pilgrim. Closet anti-positivist. Arts & sciences. More info: Github Created the initial implementation of Pairwise
  • @gichiba - Technical Writer at the Ethereum Foundation More info: Linkedin
  • @ZeptimusQ - Transparency and accountability advocate. A passionate representative focused on decentralized governance. Fundraising & Business Developer at General Magic.

Social Credibility (development progress, awards, notable GitHub commits, referrals):

Discord contact: ZeptimusQ

Eligibility Criteria:

  • Do you have a commitment to open-source (i.e. every open-source license accepted by the Open-Source Initiative) technology and sharing results publicly?
  • Have you provided transparency about how exactly funding will be used?
  • Are you advancing values of freedom and privacy (no surveillance and handling of personal data)?
  • Are you supporting decentralization in various fields (for example building Web3 projects)?
  • Have you provided social media channels to the extent that we can confirm social proof of your project?
2

Octant Community,

We’re excited to share with you the latest developments in the Pairwise, driven by your generous support. Our journey has been filled with both challenges and groundbreaking achievements, and we’re immensely grateful for your role in this adventure.

Progress and Allocation of Funds:

Development of the Optimism Version: A major focus of our efforts and funding has been on developing the Optimism version of Pairwise. This isn’t just an update; it’s a complete game-changer in DAO voting processes. Pairwise serves as tooling to create lists in RetroPGF, tackling the distribution of 30 million OP tokens across more than 600 projects. The challenge of choosing the best projects is enormous, but Pairwise makes this task manageable and engaging by allowing badgeholders to create curated lists by comparing projects two at a time. This approach is not only simplifying decision-making but also transforming it into an exciting experience enabling a more expertise driven signaling. Check it out at pairwise.vote!

Github repos:
Frontend

Backend

Categories (built with AI)

  • Accounting of Funds Received:

    • ENS Small Grants (Rounds 5, 7, 9, 10): 3.3 ETH
    • Gitcoin Grants: 1.5k USD + 5k ARB + 390 UDSC
    • Octant Grant: 6.05 ETH
    • Optimism RPGF: 7805.18 OP
    • Optimism Grant: 95K OP (Locked, pending release)
    • Dorahacks: 0.64118904 BNB + 1000 USDT

  • The funds, including the crucial Octant grant, have been strategically used for development, testing, and enhancing user experience. The Octant funding has been particularly vital, helping us to survive and progress during the lock-up phase of the OP grant.

889×500 519 KB

  • Cross-Version Synergy: The learnings and advancements from the Optimism version are being integrated back into the public good version of Pairwise. This ensures that both versions evolve and benefit from shared development efforts.
  • Future Plans with OP Funding: Once the OP funding becomes available, we will focus on enhancing the public good version of Pairwise. Insights from the RetroPGF experience will guide us in refining Pairwise into an even more effective tool for community decision-making.

Future Roadmap:

We’re not just envisioning a future of digital democracy; we’re actively creating it. The prototype, a testament to our progress, is available for you to explore at https://pairwise.generalmagic.io/.

1256×1043 179 KB

Request for Continued Support:

As we venture into the next phase of development, your ongoing support is essential. Pairwise has the potential to redefine community decision-making and governance in the digital space, and we’re dedicated to realizing this vision. Your role in this journey is invaluable, and we look forward to sharing more milestones with you soon.

Thank you for being a part of Pairwise’s growth.

1 Like
3

Update Pairwise Development

We are eager to present our updated plans for Pairwise to the Octant community, expressing our gratitude for the funding received during epochs 2 and 3. Our commitment to improving digital democracy and simplifying the decision-making process in DAOs drives our progress, guiding us toward our goal. Given the alignment with the RetroPGF trend, we are updating our roadmap to better reflect our current direction.

We have been working on developing a new version of Pairwise, tailored to support RetroPGF (Retroactive Public Goods Funding). RetroPGF rewards projects contributions after they have occurred, reducing bureaucracy and fostering a free-market environment where public goods projects compete to make the most impact in the ecosystem.

Leveraging our experience as RetroPGF tooling on Optimism, we have gained valuable insights and will continue to refine our project to meet the broader ecosystem’s needs. We understand that each community may prefer a customized front-end; for instance, if you are funding builders on Optimism, you wouldn’t want the front end to prompt applications for building on Arbitrum or any other ecosystem. With that in mind, all our code is open-source, allowing anyone to fork and build upon our work, showcasing the true spirit of open-source collaboration.

image
image405×863 77.5 KB

Looking Ahead

  • We aim to enhance the Pairwise experience by introducing a mobile interface that supports pseudo-anonymous voting. We believe that the optimal Pairwise experience should be accessible on a phone, complemented by easy login options via email and a desktop version for delegating voting power on desktop. The rationale for pseudo-anonymity is to ensure that voters can make independent decisions without feeling pressured to vote for their friends, while also preventing the potential for biased voting if the process were fully anonymous.

  • Users have expressed a desire not to keep voting for projects they are not interested in funding. To address this, we plan to implement a Tinder-style pre-voting filter—bringing a familiar swipe mechanism to governance. This approach will allow users to quickly sort through projects, engaging only with those they wish to support.

  • We also recognize that badgeholders have contributed significantly without receiving rewards. Our goal is to transform this experience into one where voters earn points for their participation, which can later be exchanged for community tokens, adding an element of reward and enjoyment.

  • We are committed to revamping the voting flow to make it fun, enjoyable, and highly effective. [ The algorithm is very similar to the Elo rating system which is the dominant way of doing this work in the default world] and it works!

Anti-Gaming Measures and Transparency

  • The Pairwise voting process is not like snapshot, it will be very easy to track how users use the application using traditional analytics tooling and separate authentic users from bots and people who are just clicking through to promote their own projects.
  • If the ballot submission looks like they are only farming the reward or just voting for their own projects without putting in an authentic effort to judge other projects, we will not give the reward to that voter, but we will still count the ballot.
  • We will maintain complete transparency in the reward calculation and distribution process. Everything will be public.

The product progress can be viewed in our latest prototype, available here.

1 Like
4

Our last voting session on Epoch 3 did not attract as many participants as we had hoped. We’re eager to hear your thoughts on overcoming these obstacles.

Progress Update:

Development updates: We have been developing all the features mentioned in the previous post. We had scheduled an internal launch on June 10, with the official release set for June 23. This launch will include all the features mentioned previously mentioned

Experimental Voting Round: We are initiating an experimental voting round on Optimism, designed to simplify and gamify the RetroPGF experience. The goal with this experiment is to run a full Pairwise round and compare the results with the oficial ones to nurture Retro funding initiatives. More info on the experiment here

User testing: We are actively doing user testing with different types of users (badgeholders, web3 gov people and new to web3 folks) we still going for more interviews but feedback found and already designed can be seen here

Audio Enhancements: We’ve hired a sound engineer and have developed some initial sound designs for Pairwise. While these are still in the alpha stage and will need further refinement, we’re excited about their potential. We believe that integrating high-quality sound effects will make the voting experience more engaging and enjoyable, helping users signal their choices enabling digital democracy.

1 Like
5

I love the Tinder swipe idea, that you shared before, I think thats a really solid way to solve that problem.

Can you dive a little deeper into the features mentioned in the previous post. Do you mean that June 10th is the target date to release everything mentioned?

1 Like
6

Thanks, James! I’m also stoked about the filtering phase. It’ll be fascinating to see it in action during real voting soon!.

Indeed, by June 10th, we plan to internally launch all these new features and will have a teaser to share. The official launch is scheduled for June 23rd, and you’ll be able to explore the updates at pairwise.vote. Here’s what you can expect:

  • Mobile-first version
  • Filtering phase
  • New flow
  • Account abstraction with pseudo-anonymous voting and feedback
  • Category comparisons
  • A desktop version to connect voting power

We’re also working on introducing new metric-based designs and implementing the sound features on the web app, though these aren’t guaranteed for the initial release.

Raw teaser, this might be completely different but we are thinking about it!

340×734 82.5 KB

7

Thanks for sharing @Zeptimus. I went through the thread on gove.optimism.io too and I like Jonas’ point:

explore the research question of how the outcomes of the Pairwise voting system compare to the outcomes of Retro Funding 4 voting using impact metrics.

It’d be interesting to see!
And I’ll definitely be curious to see the teaser after June 10th, as well. :slight_smile:

2 Likes
8

Aren’t these two separate things though @Zeptimus ?

AFAIK users are choosing their preferences with Pairwise, and Retro is trying to quantify impact. Isn’t this in a way apples and oranges?

9

We are conducting an experiment to quantify the impact using Pairwise while the RetroPGF core team experiments with metrics. The goal is to see how projects rank in Pairwise compared to metrics.

We are also experimenting with giving different stakeholders a voice to signal their preferences. All data from the Pairwise is intended for research purposes only and will not be used to distribute funds during this round.

The idea is to compare badgeholders’ bucket results with the official ones, and also to see what other groups such as recipients, delegates, or holders say, and how those differ. The goal is also to promote project discovery, as public goods are meant to be useful, and marketing plays a significant role.

2 Likes
10

Got it, thanks for clarifying!!

12

Total Funds Received (Previous Round): $66,408.60 / 28.41894611317 ETH (epoch 4 USD value based on current ETH price)

Total Funds Requested: $20,000 (Our roadmap changed drastically since that proposal)

Funds Spent: $30,000 salaries for development, testing, and enhancing user experience (This funding spent only includes Octant funds our total expenses to build the last version were higher)

Remaining Balance: $35,576.69 (epoch 4 estimated USD value of 14.3768 ETH)

Plans for next Epoch

In the short term, we will focus on adding new features to enhance the voting process specifically for Optimism Retro Funding. We plan to experiment with star ratings to speed up comparisons and customize voting cards to allow users to personalize their voting environment.

After completing RF5, we aim to gamify the experience further by introducing a points system, quests, and direct project feedback in the filtering phase.

234×509 27.4 KB

If we secure more funding, we plan to explore implementing liquid democracy using Pairwise, building on our successful integration of pseudonymous voting with zk-Bandada.

Updated Milestone 1:

  • Description: Implement star ratings and customizable voting cards.
  • Expected Immediate Outcome: Accelerate the voting process and enhance user experience with personalized voting setups.
  • Funding Needed: 9 ETH

Updated Milestone 2:

  • Description: Develop a gamified experience with points, quests, and direct project feedback during the filtering phase.
  • Expected Immediate Outcome: Boost user engagement and create a more interactive voting process.
  • Funding Needed: 15 ETH

Updated Milestone 3:

  • Description: Explore and develop liquid democracy features using Pairwise, leveraging the integration of pseudonymous voting with zk Bandada.
  • Expected Immediate Outcome: Enable more sophisticated and flexible voting mechanisms within the ecosystem, promoting digital democracy.
  • Funding Needed: 260 ETH

Karma GAP: https://gap.karmahq.xyz/project/pairwise-1

Additional Funding Request: 284 ETH (this will be funded by multiple sourcers not only octant)

14

Thanks for sharing this info, diving into a few things:

I’m a little confused by this. What was originally requested was 20,000, and you received over 3x that, but now are still requesting more? Would you mind diving into the details about why your roadmap changed drastically since that proposal? What were the learnings from that proposal that prompted such a shift now?

I’m also not understanding the outcomes that have been shared on this update:

This seems like a feature, but what will be the outcome of this feature?

Can you share more about the hypothesis here? Have you run user surveys or have data suggesting that adding this into the experience will boost engagement? I understand this works well in other areas, just not sure it does with voting. (It didn’t with Octant :slight_smile: )

I’m not really sure what this means, could you elaborate on this for someone new to the topic?

Basically what I am getting at with all of this is what we tried to highlight on our recent call. If you were’t in attendence, we are truly trying to improve our reporting process so that there is a thorough understanding of what potential impact donating to your project will produce.

Here is the doc related to reporting for your situation. But this is just the bare minimum. It can be really helpful to include sharing what market ineffeciencies you are solving with Pariwise, and going really deep into things like this:

Allo Protocol already has 30+ voting mechanisms as well as the Mechanism Institute, Gardens, and others building things in this space. So I would love to understand what youre trying to build separate from all of that. Thanks @Zeptimus

1 Like
16

I also want to add to this because, after reviewing my response, I realized it doesn’t clearly mention some of the other things missing from your update. My initial comment was just a response to what you did provide.

The template I linked to above highlights what we are looking for in project updates. However, to ensure there isn’t any confusion, I’ll share what is still missing from this most recent update:

  • Detailed utilization of funds: We’re asking for a specific breakdown of how the $30,000 was spent beyond general categories (development, testing, user experience).
  • Specific milestone funding: I don’t see any amounts provided for how much funding was used for each milestone.
  • Previous challenges: I don’t see any past challenges, updates, or resolutions.
  • Outputs from previous epochs: Since you’ve been here since Epoch 1, we’re looking for solid information measurable outputs (e.g., new communities or ecosystems using the tool, retention metrics after initial testing, impact on community growth, user feedback and iteration, adoption rates, or broader ecosystem impact.).
  • Short-term & long term outcomes: I feel both lacks details as each are just a sentence long, leaving a lot to be desired.
  • Funding needed: As I mentioned above, future funding needs are provided only in ETH without a detailed breakdown in USD or clear allocation. Also, jumping such a drastic amount from what was previously requested really needs to have some strong details around rationale.
  • Other funding sources: No information on additional grant funding or other non-grant funding sources since the last epoch.
  • Financial sustainability: As mentioned in the template provided, I don’t see any details on changes to revenue sources, strategic partnerships, or plans for future funding and sustainability.

Let me know if I can provide anymore color around this, and please feel free to reach out to us anytime!

1 Like
17

Total Funds Received from Octant so far: $66,408.60 / 28.41894611317 ETH (epoch 4 USD value based on current ETH price)

Funds Spent: $30,000

Detailed Utilization: We received funds from Octant in Epoch 1 (02-11-2023) and Epoch 2 (31-01-2024), which were primarily used to pay our core team, including three full-time developers (Mahdi, Alireza, Lovel), supervised by Krati, who also contributed to the Bandada integration. We also employed a full-time designer (Sky) and had design and strategy support from Marko, Zeptimus, and Moenick, with advice from Griff.

Epoch 1 funds were used in developing the first version of Pairwise, which included a front-end interface for users to signal their preferences during RPGF3, the creation of the initial Budget Box algorithm for the backend, and the development of an AI-based tool to organize and categorize project information. Although this AI tool is not part of the core Pairwise product, it is available as an open-source tool here.

Epoch 2 funds were used to enhance a new UX, added new features based on feedback received from the previous version.

  1. Account abstraction login

  2. Pseudonymous voting integrated with zk-bandada

  3. Filtering phase

  4. Mobile/Desktop

  5. Enhanced the algorithm

This version is currently live at pairwise.vote

The funds received in Epoch 4 were claimed recently and have not yet been utilized; they will begin to be used at the end of the month to support the upcoming goals outlined in the template.

Milestones and Deliverables

Milestone 1:

  • Description: Development and implementation of the Pairwise core system.
  • Immediate Outcome: Successful creation of interfaces for viewing spaces, votes, and projects; implementation of voting.
  • Funding Used: $18,000

Milestone 2:

  • Description: Development of hierarchical Pairwise voting.
  • Immediate Outcome: Implementation of a hierarchical voting system with interfaces for different levels of assessment.
  • Funding Used: $15,000

Milestone 3:

  • Description: Attestations added to Snapshot.
  • Immediate Outcome: Extension of voting through Snapshot platform.
  • Funding Used: $7,000

Milestone 4:

  • Description: Development of flexible allocation of votes feature.
  • Immediate Outcome: Allow participants to adjust the percentage allocation of their votes according to their preferences.
  • Funding Used: $15,000

Milestone 5:

  • Description: Development and implementation of account abstraction login.
  • Immediate Outcome: Simplified and secure user authentication, allowing users to log in with greater flexibility.
  • Funding Used: $9,000

Milestone 6:

  • Description: Integration of pseudonymous voting with zk-bandada.
  • Immediate Outcome: Enhanced voter privacy and reduced peer pressure, ensuring more authentic voting.
  • Funding Used: $35,000

Milestone 7:

  • Description: Development of the filtering phase for improved voting process.
  • Immediate Outcome: Streamlined user experience, allowing participants to easily filter and prioritize voting options.
  • Funding Used: $9,000

Milestone 8:

  • Description: Implementation of a mobile and desktop responsive design.
  • Immediate Outcome: Increased accessibility and user engagement across devices, enhancing overall user experience.
  • Funding Used: $9,000

Milestone 9:

  • Description: Enhancement of the Pairwise algorithm for better accuracy in voting outcomes.
  • Immediate Outcome: Improved precision and reliability in the ranking and allocation of votes, leading to more effective decision-making.
  • Funding Used: $9,000

Karma GAP: https://gap.karmahq.xyz/project/pairwise-1

Challenges

Previous Challenges:

Pseudonymous voting:

  • Description: One of the significant challenges we previously faced was integrating pseudonymous voting using zk-bandada. This was a complex task due to the technical requirements and the need for seamless integration with our existing system.
  • Updates: The integration was successfully completed, but it required more time and resources.
  • Resolution: We overcame the challenges by engaging directly with zk-bandada experts, allocating additional development resources, and adjusting our timelines accordingly.
  • Lessons Learned: Early and active collaboration with technical partners is crucial. Allocating sufficient resources and building in extra time for complex integrations are also important to avoid delays and ensure successful implementation. Additionally, having a flexible approach to problem-solving allows for smoother adjustments when unexpected issues arise.

Edit results:

  • Description: We encountered a significant challenge with the need to modify the numbers while maintaining the integrity of the Pairwise algorithm. Initially, users could manually edit results, but this caused issues with the algorithm. We had to develop a drag-and-drop feature to allow better aggregation of results without breaking the system.
  • Updates: The drag-and-drop feature was successfully implemented, which resolved the issue.
  • Resolution: We solved this by designing and implementing a drag-and-drop interface, which allowed users to modify results in a way that preserved the algorithm’s accuracy and functionality.
  • Lessons Learned: The challenge highlighted the importance of designing user interactions that align with underlying algorithms. Ensuring that user actions are intuitive while maintaining system integrity requires thoughtful design and testing. Involving users early in the process for feedback can also help in identifying potential issues before they become significant problems.

Outputs and Outcomes

Outputs (Last Epoch):

  • Output 1: Engaged multiple stakeholders, including badgeholders, delegates, recipients, and token holders, in the RetroFunding 4 experiment exploring digital democracy as a community not only badgeholders.
  • Output 2: Successfully implemented pseudonymous voting.
  • Output 3: Developed and deployed the mobile ux and filtering phase.

Short-term Outcomes:

  • Outcome 1: Increased user engagement and participation due to the comfort provided by pseudonymous voting.
  • Outcome 2: Positive recognition from Optimism, leading to potential future collaborations.
  • Outcome 3: Enhanced decision-making process with the implementation of the filtering phase, allowing a more efficient Pairwise assessment.

Long-term Outcomes:

  • Outcome 1: Broader adoption of Pairwise in decentralized governance, establishing it as a key tool for decision-making.
  • Outcome 2: Continued collaboration with Optimism and other ecosystem players, driving innovation and integration.
  • Outcome 3: Growth in community engagement and participation, with Pairwise becoming a central platform for voting and governance.

Metrics for Outcomes:

  1. User Engagement: Engagement metrics were boosted significantly due to the introduction of pseudonymous voting, it’s very important for public figures as top delegates and Badgehoders to protect their identity when rejecting projects.
  2. Financial Metrics: Successfully raised funds and maintained a reserve to continue development.
  3. User Satisfaction: Received highly positive feedback, with users expressing excitement over the latest version and its effectiveness. Optimism reached out to be alternative oficial tooling which will bring attention to Pairwise to keep advancing digital democracy.

Plans for Potential Funds Raised in the Next Octant Allocation Window

Goal 1:

  • Description: Implement star ratings and customizable voting cards. Users will be able to give stars to projects and then compare 5 stars to 5 stars and so on.
  • Expected Outcome: Accelerate the voting process/ make less comparisons. And enhance user experience with personalized voting setups.
  • Funding Needed: $18,000

Goal 2:

  • Description: Develop a gamified experience with points, quests, and direct project feedback during the filtering phase.
  • Expected Outcome: Boost user engagement and create a more interactive voting process.
  • Funding Needed: $27,000

Note: Having a direct feedback button will help projects align with the collective. For example, people who reject a project can provide feedback on why it was rejected or give acknowledgment. The goal with points and quests is to foster this engagement, such as offering points for sharing feedback with three accepted projects. We plan to use this system to reward participants and promote engagement.

Goal 3:

  • Description: Explore and develop liquid democracy features using Pairwise, leveraging the integration of pseudonymous voting with zk Bandada.
  • Expected Outcome: Enable more sophisticated and flexible voting mechanisms within the ecosystem, promoting digital democracy.
  • Funding Needed: $700,000

Other Funding

Grant Funding Received Since the Last Epoch: We have not received any new liquid grants since the last epoch.

Other Non-Grant Funding Sources: n/a

Future Plans for Financial Sustainability

Our primary expenses focused on salaries. To ensure long-term sustainability, we are exploring recurring revenue streams, such as offering Pairwise for grant distribution services and charging a fee. Currently, we rely on grants, primarily from Octant and Optimism, as well as platforms like Giveth, Gitcoin, and Metagov. Octant’s funding is crucial for our growth and scalability. Our goal is to create a product that can be widely used, eventually generating revenue by providing services to various communities.

2 Likes
18

The initial ask of 20k was to develop Milestones 1 and 2 in the older roadmap. We delivered those features and more, the reward system is still in progress (currently working on designs). Our roadmap shifted significantly after integrating pseudonymous voting (that was out of scope already), leading to an obsession with launching a zk-powered liquid democracy mechanism. This could directly benefit Octant by increasing quorum and better signaling community preferences. Working with ZK is complicated, which explains the price jump.

Liquid democracy is a hybrid between direct and representative democracy. In a liquid democracy, individuals can either vote directly on issues or delegate their vote to someone else they trust. This delegated vote can be passed along multiple times, creating a flexible, dynamic system where influence can shift according to expertise and trust. It gets wild, for example, I delegate to you, James, but you didn’t vote and instead delegated to Matias. My vote would end up going to Matias as well because I trusted you to delegate my vote OR vote for me. That always applies in case I didn’t vote; if I vote, then my vote counts for me, and anyone who delegated to me. We want to integrate that process with ZK.

It is a bit of a pivot, but we see an opportunity to bring liquid democracy to DAO governance and combined with a fun UX we think it will have more impact than the previous roadmap.

Despite enabling Liquid Democracy, we still want as much participation as possible in governance and to promote project discovery. This way, we grow the public goods ecosystem; people learn about the cool things many developers are building. So this is why we are still pushing the gamification and rewards system.

If there are more concerns, do not hesitate to ask, thanks for your support and guidance @james.

1 Like
19

Hi @Zeptimus I appreciate going into further detail on this. Can you share more details around the outcomes and metrics across what I’m highlighting above. I’m looking for specifics here such as:

Where and what is this referring to? Can you share data?

Can you share details here?

What other ecosystems? Please be very detailed here because I’m really curious outside of OP what spaces are using Pairwise.

Basically, all of the places where there is 1 sentence answering the question concisely, we’re looking to understand more intimately the details around all of this.

On a separate topic:

I’m also trying to understand better the grants that Pairwise has received up until this point from Optimism, as I think there is a glitch in what Karma gap is reporting when I view Pairwise on KG. Was the most recent funding that you received from OP the 95,000 tokens in February 2024? Are those locked for a certain period of time?

And Lastly:

Are there not concerns with the fact that someone might trust user A, but not essentially trust user B, and therefor not be ok that user A delegated to user B? Was this a feature that was requested by a specific ecosystem using the product?

20

Metrics and Outcomes.

  1. In Retro Funding 3, we had 380 atestations made by 108 unique addresses, and we were considered official alternative tooling. In Retro Funding 4, we conducted an external experiment, and despite not working directly with Optimism and being unofficial, with all the changes we made, we had 1198 atestations made by 165 unique addresses using Pairwise.
  2. We received massive support from Optimism and Octant, and after paying salaries, we have a reserve of 200k (mostly in volatile tokens like OP and ETH). These funds will be used to continue improving Pairwise as an open-source product.
  3. We didn’t conduct a typeform; most of the feedback was through DMs. However, a sign that people were happy with our work is that Optimism offered us the opportunity to become alternative official tooling in RF5, thanks to our successful independent experiment in RF4.

This is referring to the increased engagement in the two voting rounds we conducted using Pairwise—RPGF3 and RF4.

In Optimism, badgeholders decide how to distribute Retro Funding for activities done. In our experiment, all stakeholders could participate. One of the factors driving better community engagement is providing funding to projects, which is crucial for projects. It’s an opportunity that serves as a marketing opportunity. Public goods are meant to be used, and Pairwise aims to facilitate this by providing a solution for a large engagement in the community.

Giveth, ENS, Commons Stack. We’ve had discussions about Pairwise and conducted some small tests at pairwise.generalmagic.io. In ENS, we won multiple small grants (which can be seen in the first post here).

No, the most recent grant was from Octant Epoch 4. The 95k grant is from July 2023, and yes, it was locked for a year. All the work we did recently provided no financial gain except for Octant Epoch 4. That being said, we might be eligible for future funding in Retro Funding 6.

21

If I trust someone to make decisions on my behalf, I trust them regardless of the choices they make. Moreover, I always have the option to vote myself, so delegation doesn’t prevent me from participating directly. Liquid delegation is also flexible and can be changed at any time. This feature wasn’t specifically requested by any ecosystem, but we’re really excited to build it!

23

Thanks for the details here. Two final things I want to ask. You referenced ENS

Has ENS used Pairwise recently, and has their usage of the product been growing? I’m curious about this in respect to when these grants given, because I think it was a while ago? Is there a reason that they haven’t given any subsequent larger grants since?

Overall, this is the comment that I find a little concerning

This is a decent amount of money to get you started (and complete) many of the milestones you have outlined, but it seems you want to keep this money as a safety net rather than using it? Is there a reason for this? Why not complete all of the milestones you outlined and begin building the liquid democracy POC / milestones? Especially because:

1 Like
24

Not recently. Nick, ENS founder, wanted the ENS Small Grants to experiment with Pairwise. We didn’t push it because our team was smaller back then (it was only 1 dev and myself doing fundraising). Now, with the support we’ve received, especially from Optimism and Octant, we’re growing and can do much more.

image
image1055×277 12.6 KB

I agree, it does seem like a lot on the surface, but hiring and retaining talent isn’t cheap. We’re not trying to build a safety net just for the sake of it; we want to ensure our team feels secure and motivated to continue working together. As we aim to grow, more funds are needed to maintain this momentum. We’ve delivered on our milestones and beyond them and continue to improve, but without sufficient funding, sustaining the team long-term becomes challenging. Competing for top talent, requires significant resources.