Profile of SEEDGov in Optimism
Posts by SEEDGov
-
Season 7: CFC Membership
by SEEDGov - No Role
Posted on: Nov. 4, 2024, 8:10 a.m.
Content: @op_julian we completed the CFC Opt-In form on October 29 th, but we haven’t received the meeting link yet
Likes: 0
Replies: 0
No likes yet.
No replies yet.
-
Season 6: Standard Rollup Charter Ratification
by SEEDGov - No Role
Posted on: Oct. 21, 2024, 2:41 p.m.
Content:
500 × 500 5 . 4 KBUpdates to the Standard Rollup Charter
On the other hand, affording Chain Governors blocking rights over protocol upgrades for their specific chain poses meaningful risk.
We would like to confirm; this means that no Chain Governor could block the upgrade process for the rest, correct?
How is this mitigated with interoperability? In principle, chains that fall behind with an old version should be disconnected since the state transition of all involved is at risk.
500 × 500 5 . 4 KBUpdates to the Standard Rollup Charter
As such, the Optimism Foundation has implemented a suite of history integrity checks, which can be used to identify historical discrepancies between chains and manually assess their impact. The Optimism Foundation will assess these discrepancies on an as-needed basis. If it believes that these discrepancies risk violating the Law of Chains (e.g., User Protections) in the future once the chain is added as a Standard Rollup, it will deny the chain’s inclusion, even if all other criteria in this document are met.
This process initially seems to have the same level of importance as a typical protocol upgrade audit. Is it expected to treat it as such? Is it expected to cover those in conjunction with third-party security teams? It would be great if these followed a report format for public knowledge.
Likes: 3
Replies: 0
No replies yet.
-
Season 6: [DRAFT] Standard Rollup Charter
by SEEDGov - No Role
Posted on: Oct. 21, 2024, 2:41 p.m.
Content:
500 × 500 5 . 4 KBUpdates to the Standard Rollup Charter
On the other hand, affording Chain Governors blocking rights over protocol upgrades for their specific chain poses meaningful risk.
We would like to confirm; this means that no Chain Governor could block the upgrade process for the rest, correct?
How is this mitigated with interoperability? In principle, chains that fall behind with an old version should be disconnected since the state transition of all involved is at risk.
500 × 500 5 . 4 KBUpdates to the Standard Rollup Charter
As such, the Optimism Foundation has implemented a suite of history integrity checks, which can be used to identify historical discrepancies between chains and manually assess their impact. The Optimism Foundation will assess these discrepancies on an as-needed basis. If it believes that these discrepancies risk violating the Law of Chains (e.g., User Protections) in the future once the chain is added as a Standard Rollup, it will deny the chain’s inclusion, even if all other criteria in this document are met.
This process initially seems to have the same level of importance as a typical protocol upgrade audit. Is it expected to treat it as such? Is it expected to cover those in conjunction with third-party security teams? It would be great if these followed a report format for public knowledge.
Likes: 3
Replies: 0
No replies yet.
-
Superchain Product Vision
by SEEDGov - No Role
Posted on: Oct. 17, 2024, 8:44 a.m.
Content:
system:
The Superchain is a network of chains/platforms, each with its own sovereignty
We would like to better understand what sovereignty means in practice here. It seems like there isn’t much room for chain operators/communities to apply specification changes outside of those specified in non-protocol features and parts related to managing revenue. It’s worth asking if this is something that will become more flexible in the future and how this contrasts with OP Governance’s ownership and security of the infrastructure.
Likes: 3
Replies: 0
No replies yet.
-
Joint House Call will be [Tuesday, October 8th @ 11:00 PT / 14:00 ET / 18:00 GMT / 20:00 CET]
by SEEDGov - No Role
Posted on: Oct. 8, 2024, 11:34 a.m.
Content: We would like to ask if we can briefly comment, no more than two minutes, on our rebranding to SEED Gov that we have announced here: SEEDGov - Delegate Communication Thread - # 52 by SEEDGov
Likes: 2
Replies: 0
No replies yet.
-
Joint House Call will be [Tuesday, October 8th @ 11:00 PT / 14:00 ET / 18:00 GMT / 20:00 CET]
by SEEDGov - No Role
Posted on: Oct. 8, 2024, 11:34 a.m.
Content: We would like to ask if we can briefly comment, no more than two minutes, on our rebranding to SEED Gov that we have announced here: SEEDGov - Delegate Communication Thread - # 52 by SEEDGov 2
Likes: 2
Replies: 0
No replies yet.
-
[Mission Request] Increase Prevalence of Non-USD/EURO Stablecoins
by SEEDGov - No Role
Posted on: Oct. 4, 2024, 12:59 p.m.
Content: One question, is the liquidity growth initiative also applicable to exchanges or custodial services, or is it exclusively focused on protocols? One might imagine that such companies would develop incentive mechanisms integrated into their products.
Likes: 4
Replies: 1
Replies:
- Michael: The target is onchain protocols and decentralized exchanges.
-
SEEDGov - Delegate Communication Thread
by SEEDGov - No Role
Posted on: Sept. 30, 2024, 11:34 a.m.
Content: We are excited to share with the Collective our relaunch: we are now SEEDGov!
From SEED Latam to SEED Org: About a broader reorganization into SEEDGov, SEEDNode and SEED Latam
As SEED Latam evolved, so has our scope. We grew from a community into SEED Org, an organization with three key verticals: SEEDGov is our Delegate Platform, the first Latam-based platform actively engaged in governance activities; SEEDNodes focuses on nodes infrastructure and education services; and SEED Latam, our original branch, is centered on communities, collaboration hubs, and knowledge-sharing, hosting online initiatives. We invite you to know more about us here 1 . For this reason, the rebranding to SEEDGov reflects our aim to streamline our structure—SEEDGov focuses on governance, while SEED Latam continues with community-driven initiatives. This distinction helps clarify our identity, both internally and externally.
Our early days:
Before delving into the details of this rebranding, let’s take a brief look at our journey. The SEED Latam delegation in Optimism has always embraced a collaborative approach, with contributions from various members along the way. Throughout this journey ,we’ve been fortunate to have the support of several collaborators across past seasons. Our delegation in Optimism has worked to spread knowledge about Optimism within the Spanish-speaking community, primarily in Latin America. We’ve taken this effort further by actively involving the community in the delegation’s decisions and voting. You can read more about this in our articles The Social Consensus of SEED Latam and The composition of the SEED Latam delegates vote.
Adapting to Optimism’s iteration:
Optimism continually evolves with new structures, roles, and responsibilities each season. To keep pace, we have expanded and reorganized our team, ensuring that we can contribute in all the directions the Collective is growing. Our deep understanding of the OP stack and governance mechanisms enables us to align our work seamlessly with the needs of the protocol, builders, and end-users, thus making meaningful contributions to the community. As a result, we’ve consolidated a team with specific roles that operates horizontally. Our team is composed of @Joxes as tech researcher -who participated in the Grants Council for the Builders vertical during S 5 ; @Pumbi as governance analyst-collaborator on Token House participation and incentives: Season 5 (Cycle 16 - 19 ) and member of the Code of Conduct Council S 6 ; @delphine e as coordinator and @Fehz as governance lead of SEEDGov, the delegation platform of SEED Org. Additionally, we are collaborating with partners like Zenbit for developing tools.
Today: A Governance Platform
Amid Season 6 , we are at a key moment of crystallizing this methodology and continue to operate horizontally, where each member tackles a specific role, functioning as a platform similar to others in the ecosystem.
Finally, in line with this evolution, we are pleased to announce that you will now find us on the forum as SEEDGov. Additionally, we will soon change our ENS to SEEDGov (op.seedgov.eth).
delegacion op 1500 × 600 56 KB
Likes: 8
Replies: 0
No replies yet.
-
SEED Latam - Delegate Communication Thread
by SEEDGov - No Role
Posted on: Sept. 30, 2024, 11:34 a.m.
Content: We are excited to share with the Collective our relaunch: we are now SEEDGov!
From SEED Latam to SEED Org: About a broader reorganization into SEEDGov, SEEDNode and SEED Latam
As SEED Latam evolved, so has our scope. We grew from a community into SEED Org, an organization with three key verticals: SEEDGov is our Delegate Platform, the first Latam-based platform actively engaged in governance activities; SEEDNodes focuses on nodes infrastructure and education services; and SEED Latam, our original branch, is centered on communities, collaboration hubs, and knowledge-sharing, hosting online initiatives. We invite you to know more about us here 1 . For this reason, the rebranding to SEEDGov reflects our aim to streamline our structure—SEEDGov focuses on governance, while SEED Latam continues with community-driven initiatives. This distinction helps clarify our identity, both internally and externally.
Our early days:
Before delving into the details of this rebranding, let’s take a brief look at our journey. The SEED Latam delegation in Optimism has always embraced a collaborative approach, with contributions from various members along the way. Throughout this journey ,we’ve been fortunate to have the support of several collaborators across past seasons. Our delegation in Optimism has worked to spread knowledge about Optimism within the Spanish-speaking community, primarily in Latin America. We’ve taken this effort further by actively involving the community in the delegation’s decisions and voting. You can read more about this in our articles The Social Consensus of SEED Latam and The composition of the SEED Latam delegates vote.
Adapting to Optimism’s iteration:
Optimism continually evolves with new structures, roles, and responsibilities each season. To keep pace, we have expanded and reorganized our team, ensuring that we can contribute in all the directions the Collective is growing. Our deep understanding of the OP stack and governance mechanisms enables us to align our work seamlessly with the needs of the protocol, builders, and end-users, thus making meaningful contributions to the community. As a result, we’ve consolidated a team with specific roles that operates horizontally. Our team is composed of @Joxes as tech researcher -who participated in the Grants Council for the Builders vertical during S 5 ; @Pumbi as governance analyst-collaborator on Token House participation and incentives: Season 5 (Cycle 16 - 19 ) and member of the Code of Conduct Council S 6 ; @delphine e as coordinator and @Fehz as governance lead of SEEDGov, the delegation platform of SEED Org. Additionally, we are collaborating with partners like Zenbit for developing tools.
Today: A Governance Platform
Amid Season 6 , we are at a key moment of crystallizing this methodology and continue to operate horizontally, where each member tackles a specific role, functioning as a platform similar to others in the ecosystem.
Finally, in line with this evolution, we are pleased to announce that you will now find us on the forum as SEEDGov. Additionally, we will soon change our ENS to SEEDGov (op.seedgov.eth).
delegacion op 1500 × 600 56 KB
Likes: 8
Replies: 0
No replies yet.
-
Accelerated Decentralization Proposal For Optimism
by SEEDGov - No Role
Posted on: Sept. 24, 2024, 8:06 a.m.
Content: At SEEDGov, we appreciate that the conversation around the current state of governance in Optimism is being debated. Like everyone here, we value and believe it’s important for all voices in the Collective to engage in order to ensure that decisions and expectations are aligned with the ultimate goals of the protocol.
First impression observed: we notice that the way this petition has been framed might not fully reflect or reference certain aspects of Optimism’s current vision -both from a technical and social perspective- which have been discussed in various instances. As we have shown support for Optimism’s current thesis, we wonder if this validation is shared by others.
Here are our thoughts:
“OP Token Contract Ownership”
GFXlabs:
deploying standardized OP token contracts on Superchain member chains and a reliable, quick mint-burn bridge between those chains. This is of particular urgency with the Superchain grants program scheduled to dispense 12 , 000 , 000 OP tokens to member chains, but with no way to reliably get those tokens to those chains.
Since OP is the flagship asset of the Optimism ecosystem, the way it’s proposed to implement it across OP Chains might not fully account for some of its implications, as there’s currently no way to bridge OP without encountering certain pain points in order to obtain a usable representation early on. This is what we understand interop will eventually solve. On the other hand, we recognize that it may be perceived as an organizational oversight to have launched a grants program for OP Chains, considering this limitation would arise.
“Governance Contract Ownership”
system:
This proposal will transition upgrade control to the Security Council,
We believe this is a necessary step in the right direction. This topic has been discussed on previous occasions, highlighting the importance of implementing it appropriately. For example, the future governor should ideally include the Citizen House to ensure both houses operate in harmony and avoid one overtaking the other. In our view, there’s still much to explore in this broad design space. Therefore, forcing the governor to be controlled solely by the Token House might not be the most suitable approach under current expectations, in our opinion.
“Governance Fund Ownership”
Gonna.eth:
I proposed this as a baby step towards establishing a battle-tested Treasury Council that would eventually be able to execute key tasks like grant deliveries, Retro funding distributions, and governance rewards. The goal is to gradually build its capacity, so it can also propose a strategy to put the 15 , 397 ETH collected into a sustainable farm for the Token House in the near future.
We believe this approach is reasonable, as governance is in a position to take greater control of its own funds, assume responsibility for its actions, and develop a relevant framework to consolidate its autonomy regarding its own expenditures.
“Bridge L 1 Escrow Comes Under Governance Control”
GFXlabs:
Utilizing bridge assets is being made common by other chains, most notably Blast, Mantle, and Gnosis, with Polygon looking like it will follow suit
system:
we feel an obligation to express our strongly held viewpoint that such appropriation of user assets would represent an existential threat to Optimism’s social contract
Upon reviewing this, our main impression is that it’s essential to prioritize the protection of user rights and the security of funds from a technical perspective. The discussion on revenue opportunities for the Collective, beyond sequencing revenues (which remain unresolved), warrants deeper analysis considering the design of Superchain. It would be wise to take the necessary time to debate this, considering all implications, should part of the Collective be willing to follow this path. Ultimately, Optimism is a set of blockchains scaling Ethereum, and this neutrality has been a fundamental expectation emerging from the Ethereum community regarding how a Layer 2 is defined.
“Sequencer Decentralization Roadmap”
GFXlabs:
If this date to decentralize the sequencer is determined to be unfeasible within the decentralization plan, then the plan should also present specific actionable steps to ensure the current sequencer operator is directly accountable to governance for major parameters.
This is a recurring topic in X circles and is part of many teams’ pursuit of the holy grail of solutions. However, we believe this point should be considered alongside the other technical improvements and new designs planned for the upcoming Superchain phase. This represents a significant shift for any rollup stack design. In our opinion, the Collective should eventually have the right to choose the entity behind the sequencer and be able to make the switch itself, under a voted framework.
“Phase III (concluding Q 2 2025 )”
We are excited about the interest and desire for the technical decentralization of the Optimism Protocol in less than 12 months. However, from a realistic perspective, this is unlikely to happen, given the vision and goals of the Optimism Collective and their implications for implementation. Each previous phase involves numerous rounds of discussions, and it’s clear that consensus among all interested parties will happen with back and forth. On our part, we will actively participate in the discussions without the need to set a specific timeline if the current roadmap suggests a different appreciation.
Other comments:
GFXlabs:
This stands in stark contrast to Optimism’s main competitor, Arbitrum, where the ARB token has complete system control over Arbitrum One and Arbitrum Nova.
ccerv 1 :
The point is that just because there are examples of DAOs that decentralized faster, it’s wrong to assume that every DAO should follow a similar trajectory / timeline. More complex organisms take longer to stand on their own.
Certainly, we believe that the current state of other ecosystems—considered competitors—should not be a reason to condition our decision-making models. Existing models are far from perfect, and particularly, the Optimism Collective has followed a markedly different process, with each iteration and restructuring over the seasons, making its process unique.
ccerv 1 :
That said, the “vibe check” aspect should be separate from the “what next” aspect.
In line with Carl here, we believe the request adds a number of initiatives and substantial changes that may be unrealistic to achieve. It is more appropriate, and evidently clear, that asking delegates about their interest in advancing Optimism’s decentralization is one thing, while specific objectives, order, and timing are issues that should be addressed at a later stage. Keeping the latter as a separate draft would have been a better approach.
On a Final Note:
To GFXLabs, once again, we thank you for this push, as all these topics deserve to be discussed—from goals and design to implementation—something stakeholders should have the opportunity to provide their input on.
To the Foundation, we appreciate your time dedicated to responding extensively to this request, disclosing several of the future next steps to propose to governance. This attitude should be a common practice, and we hope the conversation about the future of Optimism will reach its peak of intensity by the end of Season 6 .
For us, the most critical part is found right here: how to move forward with the decentralization discussion, split into its various parts, following what was described to be presented. For example, the next step mentioned by @lavande:
lavande:
This “decentralization milestones framework” is currently under review by the Collective Feedback Commission and we plan to publish it soon,
This step shouldn’t take long, as the Foundation is one of the main stewards of Optimism’s vision.
Likes: 8
Replies: 1
Replies:
- alexsotodigital: Hi!
After reading this thread, I realize that concrete actions are already being taken to follow up on the various proposals that have been presented. Wanting to avoid repeating what more capable people have already expressed, I’ll set the topic of ‘decentralization’ aside; understanding that we are all aligned with the intention, and it’s just the details of the implementation that differ.
ACC:
The ACC members discussed with Foundation that there are concrete proposals for decentralization coming up in the next few Voting Cycles and gradually but surely, more control is being ceded to governance in a progressive manner. To this effect, the Petition for Accelerated Decentralization felt like a timing issue while we are all on the same path towards decentralization.
And yet, I believe this conversation has highlighted a different topic: revenue opportunities for the Collective, beyond sequencing revenues.
SEEDGov:
The discussion on revenue opportunities for the Collective, beyond sequencing revenues (which remain unresolved), warrants deeper analysis considering the design of Superchain.
Especially if we consider that the trend is for that revenue source to decrease over time.
AnthiasLabs:
The value proposition of the Superchain may be correct, but we, along with other delegates, continue to maintain the thesis that sequencer fees are going to 0.
And I believe that coming up with possible solutions is a responsibility of the collective rather than the foundation.
GFXlabs:
We view the Foundation and Labs as parents to governance. Just as there is sometimes tension when a child has grown up, and the parents need time to adjust to the new dynamic, we understand it can be difficult to let go of the reins.
In other words, if we continue with the analogy of parenthood, I’d say we need to demonstrate our maturity and capability by taking proactive steps in this matter, rather than waiting for someone else to solve it in the future.
What do we do about it?
For the sake of order, I suggest opening a new thread to focus on ‘revenue opportunities’ without diverting this one from its initial focus (which is the pace at which we should decentralize operations). I’m not aware if there are other conversations about this, but at least it wasn’t evident to me when searching the forum.
I leave this post here, inviting anyone who wants to participate in a 'Collective Proposal Creation’ to brainstorm and synthesize some paths to address this concern.
I hope my suggestion is appropriate. Thank you in advance for your comments in the thread.
