According to documentation I read on the community page of the optimism, the most striking part is attestations are not completely democratic and this is a good sign for preventing sybil attacks/manipulation.

What I observed so far about sybil attacks was it is very easy to achieve it on many social media and communication websites/applications such as twitter, facebook and discord. Mods of a spesific pages on these platforms, even generally head administrators of these websites are not able to detect sybil manipulations instantly because there is almost no obstacles against it. Some websites use two 2FA or/and KYC but many modern sybil attacks pass these obstacles.

On the other hand, some websites try to protect public votes and DAO administrations from sybil attacks by making spesific requirements from users. Sometimes these requirement is amount of the token so sybil attackers need too much money, sometimes it is machines like computers so sybil attackers need many working and also not obsolete computers, sometimes it is multiples grants provided by different applications.

On the other hand, I also observed that many real people, including me, who are interested in web3 are not able to take grants or vote due to harsh requirements of some websites like snapshot and gitcoin. Especially, gitcoin passport is too difficult to get that many people sign websites they never heard before up and still are not able to reach spesific score for the passport.

In conclusion, three main requirements come to my mind.

1. We saw that both complete democracy and harsh meristocracy is not a correct way to apply ideas of the real community. I think that related token or NFT should definitely be part of a grant but it should be affordable for people who really want to be part of the community but her/his financial situation is not very good. Time definitely should be a grant because someone should not be able to manipulate the system by creating multiple accounts if she/he has too much money. Reputation is an awesome way for controlling contribution of people to the community and the project. Questions, answers, informative posts should give reputation to users but there should be a mechanism that prevent users to spam upvotes to each other's spam replies. This actions should not be just removed but also requires negative reputation by the moderators.

2. Most of the reputations should be required to pass the attestation but if all of the requirements are needed, some important people who are busy like talented artists, programmers etc. would not be able to get a pass because some requirements may need too much time to claim grant. There also may be minor bugs for claiming grants for a small part of community so this should also be considered.

3. In order to be sure that the person understands the basic principles of the mechanism she/he is a part of, people should made some spesific transactions before. These may include paying gas fees several times, minting one of the NFTs related to the project, buying or selling a NFT, running a node, attending an AMA. These actions also should have different scores so that voters' power should not be equal.

It's great to see companies actively seeking feedback from their users and community members in the development of their products. By asking for input on the key features for their Attestation module on Optimism, Fractal Visions is demonstrating a commitment to ensuring that their product meets the needs and expectations of their users. It will be interesting to see what kind of requirements and achievements are deemed important for the attestation process and how these will be implemented on the Optimism network. Overall, this is a positive step towards building a more collaborative and user-centric approach to product development.

Well done team !