Skip to content

Commit

Permalink
add: correlations by metric (#1834)
Browse files Browse the repository at this point in the history
  • Loading branch information
ccerv1 authored Jul 23, 2024
1 parent efb7951 commit 4f78b86
Show file tree
Hide file tree
Showing 3 changed files with 6 additions and 2 deletions.
Loading
Sorry, something went wrong. Reload?
Sorry, we cannot display this file.
Sorry, this file is invalid so it cannot be displayed.
8 changes: 6 additions & 2 deletions apps/docs/blog/2024-07-23-rf4-ballot-box/index.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -40,6 +40,12 @@ Previous rounds, including [Optimism’s RF3](https://docs.opensource.observer/b

![distro-all](output_13_1.png)

**The metric that correlated most with overall allocation was... `trusted_monthly_active_users`.**

The chart below shows the correlation between each metric and the overall allocation. `trusted_monthly_active_users` had the highest correlation coefficient, followed by `power_user_addresses` and `trusted_recurring_users`. The good news for Goodhart’s Law enthusiasts is that `trusted_monthly_active_users` is probably one of the hardest metrics to game. Meanwhile, transaction count metrics had some of the lowest correlations with overall token allocation.

![correlation-all](correlation.png)

## Expressed vs revealed preferences

We have some insight into voters' preferences from a survey that was conducted before the voting phase. We can compare these expressed preferences against the revealed preferences from the voting data to see how well they align.
Expand All @@ -62,8 +68,6 @@ In contrast to the user metrics, voters showed a stronger preference for network

3. Weak metrics: Network quality metrics might have been perceived as less impactful. Metrics like gas efficiency and novel implementations, discussed earlier, did not make the final cut. This likely contributed to the discrepancy, suggesting a need for better quality metrics in future rounds.

![midwit](midwit.jpg)

**Voters’ preferences remained consistent around specific metrics and the open source multiplier.**

Survey responses were good predictors of final results for specific metrics like onboarding and retaining users. Although [controversial](https://gov.optimism.io/t/retro-funding-4-voting-experience/8138/2) and [difficult to assess](https://twitter.com/wagmiAlexander/status/1807053833891148231), the open source multiplier was popular both before and during the round: 87% of survey respondents valued rewarding open source projects; 80% of voters used the open source multiplier in their ballots.
Expand Down
Binary file not shown.

0 comments on commit 4f78b86

Please sign in to comment.