Profile of joxes in Optimism

Posts by joxes

• [Mission Request] Superchain Borrow/Lend Aggregator by Joxes - No Role
  Posted on: Sept. 17, 2024, 8:40 p.m.
  Content: Since this mission request is about to pass, as mentioned by @tynes above, I believe that for this mission request to succeed, it is pertinent for applicants to be familiar with the latest Interop developments. This can be considered a win-win for a project to scope their planning and launch in the most convenient way, while also providing valuable early feedback as app developers.
  Likes: 7 Replies: 0
  Likers: brichis, SEEDGov, Pumbi, AnthiasLabs, grapebaba, Rizz, Pengu
  No replies yet.
• SEED Latam - Delegate Communication Thread by Joxes - No Role
  Posted on: Aug. 1, 2024, 1:43 a.m.
  Content: Cycle # 24 Below, we present the rationale from the SEED Latam delegation for our voting during cycle # 24 . At SEED Latam, we have selected mission requests that, in our opinion, have an appropriate scope and potential beneficial outcome for the stage Optimism is currently in. Mission Requests: Intent # 1 , 500 k OP: we have voted for [Mission Request] Cross Chain Voting [Mission Request] Grants Claiming Tool [Mission Request] Analysis of Grant Programs [Mission Request] Voting Analysis [Mission Request] Farcaster social graph [Mission Request] Develop non-technical solutions for increasing both voter and token participation in the DAO [Mission Request] Integration of Optimism Gov and RPGF into University Courses Mission Requests: Intent # 3 A, 6 M OP: we have voted for [Mission Request] Optimism Dominance in Yield-Bearing Assets ( 1 of 4 ) [Mission Request] Optimism Dominance in Yield-Bearing Assets ( 2 of 4 ) [Mission Request] Optimism Dominance in Yield-Bearing Assets ( 3 of 4 ) [Mission Request] Optimism Dominance in Yield-Bearing Assets ( 4 of 4 ) [Mission Request] Subsidized Audit Grants [Mission Request] Developer Tools [Mission Request] - Research capital migration to the Superchain [Mission Request] Microgrants for Experimental Projects [Mission Request] ERC- 4337 Data & Attribution Standards for the Superchain [Mission Request] Sequencer commitment games [MISSION REQUEST] Open-source transaction simulator [Mission Request] Increase project accounts [Mission Request] Support on-chain games close to launch [MISSION REQUEST] Startup Support - Optimism as Venture Studio [Mission Request] Gaming Infra in the Superchain [Mission Request] Marquee governance hackathon [Mission Request] Accelerating Game Development in the Superchain 1 Mission Requests: Intent # 3 B, 12 M OP [Mission Request]: Intent # 3 B: Support the Superchain : we have voted for this proposal as the way to enlarge and accelerate the Superchain grow.
  Likes: 4 Replies: 0
  Likers: Pumbi, dmars300, delphine, Jrocki
  No replies yet.
• SEEDGov - Delegate Communication Thread by Joxes - No Role
  Posted on: Aug. 1, 2024, 1:43 a.m.
  Content: Cycle # 24 Below, we present the rationale from the SEED Latam delegation for our voting during cycle # 24 . At SEED Latam, we have selected mission requests that, in our opinion, have an appropriate scope and potential beneficial outcome for the stage Optimism is currently in. Mission Requests: Intent # 1 , 500 k OP: we have voted for [Mission Request] Cross Chain Voting [Mission Request] Grants Claiming Tool [Mission Request] Analysis of Grant Programs [Mission Request] Voting Analysis [Mission Request] Farcaster social graph [Mission Request] Develop non-technical solutions for increasing both voter and token participation in the DAO [Mission Request] Integration of Optimism Gov and RPGF into University Courses Mission Requests: Intent # 3 A, 6 M OP: we have voted for [Mission Request] Optimism Dominance in Yield-Bearing Assets ( 1 of 4 ) [Mission Request] Optimism Dominance in Yield-Bearing Assets ( 2 of 4 ) [Mission Request] Optimism Dominance in Yield-Bearing Assets ( 3 of 4 ) [Mission Request] Optimism Dominance in Yield-Bearing Assets ( 4 of 4 ) [Mission Request] Subsidized Audit Grants [Mission Request] Developer Tools [Mission Request] - Research capital migration to the Superchain [Mission Request] Microgrants for Experimental Projects [Mission Request] ERC- 4337 Data & Attribution Standards for the Superchain [Mission Request] Sequencer commitment games [MISSION REQUEST] Open-source transaction simulator [Mission Request] Increase project accounts [Mission Request] Support on-chain games close to launch [MISSION REQUEST] Startup Support - Optimism as Venture Studio [Mission Request] Gaming Infra in the Superchain [Mission Request] Marquee governance hackathon [Mission Request] Accelerating Game Development in the Superchain 1 Mission Requests: Intent # 3 B, 12 M OP [Mission Request]: Intent # 3 B: Support the Superchain : we have voted for this proposal as the way to enlarge and accelerate the Superchain grow.
  Likes: 4 Replies: 0
  Likers: Pumbi, dmars300, delphine, Jrocki
  No replies yet.
• Retro Funding 4: Voting Rationale Thread by Joxes - No Role
  Posted on: July 17, 2024, 1:49 a.m.
  Content: Here’s my rationale: There is a common denominator for me, and it reflects network usage and demand for blockspace, as well as how much users are willing to spend, in sum. So I distributed my ballot in the following way: Gas Fees ( 65 %): This is the most important metric since it really shows the consumption and demand of the network from the perspective of how blockchains work: computational resources needed. It is neutral since it is the metric that objectively shows which apps are most used. It is a must to allocate a big portion to it. Total Transactions ( 15 %): Following the importance of network usage, it shows how much demand there is from users to perform operations in apps. Each operation indicates that the user wants to modify their state and then update their activity, whatever it is they are doing. I did not allocate more than this because, in the long run, it is not desirable for the signal to be distorted, to the detriment of the user experience (e.g., one single transaction to perform multiple operations). Recurring Addresses ( 7 %): Reflects interest over prolonged periods, which are signals of retention, which is good. I did not allocate more than this for reasons of farming cases where usability does not spill value nor showcase utility. Average DAAs and MAAs ( 5 % each): Reflects the importance of having more addresses interacting with each dApp; we want more of them over time. Users Onboarded ( 3 %): Where users had their first experience is theoretically a good metric but in a very limited portion. Since it is based on the definition of a “trusted user,” it would have a limited reach over the actual number of onboarded users. I hope this proportion approaches a fair distribution of what we want to drive forward: more users, more usage, which is where the impact ultimately defines itself. Additional aspects About the Open-source multiplier, I decided not to use it this round, in line with many of the comments and issues raised during the round. About LOGSCALE metrics, I decided not to use any since the logarithmic curve in base 10 , while simple, penalizes the top projects too much in my opinion. I have held the view that customizable logarithmic curves (base n, where n is defined by other methods) make more sense here. About Trusted metrics, I recognize the effort in this area but did not find it acceptable to use for most of them, so I decided to forgo their use where possible. About the voting experience, I have nothing more to say except that it has been excellent. Congratulations to everyone who made it possible.
  Likes: 5 Replies: 0
  Likers: dmars300, ZoomerAnon, ccerv1, Luckyhooman.eth, joanbp
  No replies yet.
• SEEDGov - Delegate Communication Thread by Joxes - No Role
  Posted on: June 27, 2024, 9:19 a.m.
  Content: Cycle # 23 b Below, we present the rationale from the SEED Latam delegation for our voting during cycle # 23 b. Season 6 : Anticapture Commission Amendment: In favor. After a review, we agree with the updates for this commission and we believe they are heading in the right direction for the upcoming season. (Final) V 2 . Code of Conduct Council Operating budget re-scope for season 6 . (cycle 23 b): In favor. Although we believe the budget is still slightly high, we think it is important for this commission to have continuity, as we mentioned below. (Final) V 2 . Code of Conduct Council Operating budget re-scope for season 6 . (cycle 23 b) As we mentioned before, we recognize the importance of the work carried out by this body. That’s why we noted that the negative vote decision leans more towards budget issues rather than the council’s management itself. We acknowledge and value the efforts made to refine the Code of Conduct and recognize that the budget reduction of 17 , 000 OP is significant, but we believe the total value of the operating budget remains high. Upgrade Proposal # 9 : Fjord Network Upgrade: In favor. we consider the changes very reasonable and the benefits are clearly explained as we discussed below. Upgrade Proposal # 9 : Fjord Network Upgrade After commenting on this upgrade with @Joxes and the SEED Latam delegation, we are thrilled by its versatility, efficiency, and resilience. From expanding the possibility of signing from any device to its significant impact on Data Availability and protocol-level efficiency, the Fjord upgrade brings a lot to the network. Season 6 : Chain Delegation Program Amendment: In favor. Given our current context, this program seems appropriate to relauch. Season 6 Elections: Developer Advisory Board: Voting for devtooligan, wildmolasses, wbnns, blockdev, anika, merklefruit and noah.eth. It has been challenging to select only five nominees, given the impressive skills and track record presented by each member. We have chosen these seven candidates, and we greatly thank the rest for their nomination. Grants Council Reviewer Elections: Mission Reviewer: Voting for katie, Jrocki, Michael, mastermojo, GFXlabs, MattL, jackanorak, MoneyManDoug, brichis, habacuc.eth via seedlatam, Tane and Antoine. Grants Council S 6 Election Town Hall We have voted for @MattL, @Michael, @mastermojo, @GFXlabs, @jackanorak,@MoneyManDoug and @katie, who were members of the Grants Council last season and all did an excellent job. They will be key to maintaining outstanding performance in Season 6 . Additionally, we have chosen @brichis, @Jrocki, Tane and Antoine for their combination of experience and alignment with Optimism. Finally, we voted for our candidate @habacuc.eth, who brings significant context from working internally with Joxes at the Grants Council during Season 5 , along with a technical background related to the OP Stack. He is well-prepared to represent SEED Latam in this role. Grants Council Reviewer Elections: Milestones and Metrics Reviewer: Voting for Juanbug_PGov, mmurthy and v 3 naru_Curia. Grants Council S 6 Election Town Hall We vote for mmurthy, v 3 naru_Curia and Juanbug_PGov because they participated in the Milestones and Metrics subcommittee of the Grants Council in previous seasons. Considering their positive performance and the necessary context and experience they have for the challenge of the new season, we reelect them for this season. Grants Council Reviewer Elections: Audit Reviewer: Voting for m 4 rio.eth and leo.sagan via seedlatam. Grants Council S 6 Election Town Hall We vote for m 4 rio.eth and leo.sagan because both possess the technical knowledge required for the position.
  Likes: 2 Replies: 0
  Likers: delphine, Pumbi
  No replies yet.
• SEED Latam - Delegate Communication Thread by Joxes - No Role
  Posted on: June 27, 2024, 9:19 a.m.
  Content: Cycle # 23 b Below, we present the rationale from the SEED Latam delegation for our voting during cycle # 23 b. Season 6 : Anticapture Commission Amendment: In favor. After a review, we agree with the updates for this commission and we believe they are heading in the right direction for the upcoming season. (Final) V 2 . Code of Conduct Council Operating budget re-scope for season 6 . (cycle 23 b): In favor. Although we believe the budget is still slightly high, we think it is important for this commission to have continuity, as we mentioned below. (Final) V 2 . Code of Conduct Council Operating budget re-scope for season 6 . (cycle 23 b) As we mentioned before, we recognize the importance of the work carried out by this body. That’s why we noted that the negative vote decision leans more towards budget issues rather than the council’s management itself. We acknowledge and value the efforts made to refine the Code of Conduct and recognize that the budget reduction of 17 , 000 OP is significant, but we believe the total value of the operating budget remains high. Upgrade Proposal # 9 : Fjord Network Upgrade: In favor. we consider the changes very reasonable and the benefits are clearly explained as we discussed below. Upgrade Proposal # 9 : Fjord Network Upgrade After commenting on this upgrade with @Joxes and the SEED Latam delegation, we are thrilled by its versatility, efficiency, and resilience. From expanding the possibility of signing from any device to its significant impact on Data Availability and protocol-level efficiency, the Fjord upgrade brings a lot to the network. Season 6 : Chain Delegation Program Amendment: In favor. Given our current context, this program seems appropriate to relauch. Season 6 Elections: Developer Advisory Board: Voting for devtooligan, wildmolasses, wbnns, blockdev, anika, merklefruit and noah.eth. It has been challenging to select only five nominees, given the impressive skills and track record presented by each member. We have chosen these seven candidates, and we greatly thank the rest for their nomination. Grants Council Reviewer Elections: Mission Reviewer: Voting for katie, Jrocki, Michael, mastermojo, GFXlabs, MattL, jackanorak, MoneyManDoug, brichis, habacuc.eth via seedlatam, Tane and Antoine. Grants Council S 6 Election Town Hall We have voted for @MattL, @Michael, @mastermojo, @GFXlabs, @jackanorak,@MoneyManDoug and @katie, who were members of the Grants Council last season and all did an excellent job. They will be key to maintaining outstanding performance in Season 6 . Additionally, we have chosen @brichis, @Jrocki, Tane and Antoine for their combination of experience and alignment with Optimism. Finally, we voted for our candidate @habacuc.eth, who brings significant context from working internally with Joxes at the Grants Council during Season 5 , along with a technical background related to the OP Stack. He is well-prepared to represent SEED Latam in this role. Grants Council Reviewer Elections: Milestones and Metrics Reviewer: Voting for Juanbug_PGov, mmurthy and v 3 naru_Curia. Grants Council S 6 Election Town Hall We vote for mmurthy, v 3 naru_Curia and Juanbug_PGov because they participated in the Milestones and Metrics subcommittee of the Grants Council in previous seasons. Considering their positive performance and the necessary context and experience they have for the challenge of the new season, we reelect them for this season. Grants Council Reviewer Elections: Audit Reviewer: Voting for m 4 rio.eth and leo.sagan via seedlatam. Grants Council S 6 Election Town Hall We vote for m 4 rio.eth and leo.sagan because both possess the technical knowledge required for the position.
  Likes: 2 Replies: 0
  Likers: delphine, Pumbi
  No replies yet.
• SEED Latam - Delegate Communication Thread by Joxes - No Role
  Posted on: June 25, 2024, 1:14 p.m.
  Content: Cycle # 23 a Below, we present the rationale from the SEED Latam delegation for our voting during cycle # 23 a. Protocol Upgrade # 7 : Fault Proofs 2 : Abstained. [FINAL] Protocol Upgrade # 7 : Fault Proofs After carefully reviewing the proposal, we decided to abstain as a way to differentiate from a straightforward vote FOR. This is because we highly value the reputational risk involved with this proposal and want to minimize it. This means that in our assessment, Fault Proofs definitely need to happen at some point, but considering other security contests that are set to launch in the coming weeks, it makes sense to us that Fault Proofs deployment is not yet necessary. We believe that Fault Proofs as a whole, and the measures taken at the design level to convert OP Mainnet into a Stage 1 rollup, are correct. While the Guardian Role still holds central power, the setup designed around it makes sense to accomplish their expected function. Finally, as we always emphasize, we hope that any findings regarding the Fault Proof protocol that could compromise its functionality or require alterations to its proposed design will be promptly communicated and the upgrade rescheduled accordingly. Upgrade # 8 : Guardian, Security Council Threshold and L 2 ProxyAdmin Ownership changes for Stage 1 Decentralization: In favor. [FINAL] Protocol Upgrade # 8 : Guardian, Security Council Threshold and L 2 ProxyAdmin Ownership changes for Stage 1 Decentralization We believe it is important to continue moving towards the decentralization of the Guardian, as we see the role as a single point of failure. However, we consider beneficial increasing the Security Council Safe’s signing threshold from 4 to 10 out of 13 , as this reduces the risk of having a single point of failure. Governor Update Proposal # 2 : Improvements to advanced delegation allowance calculations: In favor. [FINAL] Governor Update Proposal # 2 : Improvements to advanced delegation allowance calculations This changes on the governor goes to the right direction, we’re happy to see live such improvements and requested features. Code of Conduct Council (CoCC) Operating Budget for Season 6 : Against. [FINAL] Code of Conduct Council (CoCC) Operating Budget for Season 6 After carefully reviewing the proposal, we’ve noted several considerations to make this decision. While we acknowledge the efforts made to refine the CoC, we do not find these changes sufficient to warrant the proposed budget increase and grow their structure. We believe that the increase in the budget and the number of members is not justified by the activities during Season 5 . This proposed structure looks more like a experiment, but worth to explore under other processes (let’s say ad-honorem positions to be rewared via retroPGF if they have success). Therefore, not enough arguments are provided to makes this change reasonable to approve, or at least explaining the risks associated for Season 6 if no changes are made (let’s say, leaving the CoC Council as it). Season 6 : Intents Ratification: In favor on both ratification and budget proposals. Season 6 : Intents Ratification We think the scope for Intent 1 makes sense for now, as aligning Optimism’s goals with core developers and external teams might be challenging when referring to OP Stack development. In this regard, the work accumulated in Season 5 suffices for now and demostrate how difficult is to find alignment. Thus, we believe the GovFund making focus on decentralizing governance processes is reasonable. Regarding Intents 2 , we agree that we’re currently in the stage where the efforts must be done from a very well-focused strategy. and for Intents 3 , clearly pushing for more developer growth within the Superchain and launching applications is very positive and need to continue. About budgets, they seem appropriate for us and we have no comments in this regard. Season 6 : Developer Advisory Board Renewal: voting for Zach Obront. Zach Obront - Developer Advisory Board Operating Budget The budget for the DAB was 70 k in season 5 , while now a budget between 90 k and 122 k is being requested. Therefore, the percentage increases compared to the previous season’s budget range from 28 . 57 % to 74 . 29 %. Ed Mazurek’s option offers timely feedback on technical issues. Although the DAB’s comments were very general and focused only on the winning proposals, we are not entirely sure that the additional amount requested justifies the increases. By evaluating all the arits: expertise, previous involvement, budget requested, proposed work structure and KPIs, looks appropiate for this Season. We want to thank the efforts made by Ed Mazurek, happy to keep seeing him involved in other instances in the governance. Season 6 : Grants Council Operating Budget: In favor. Season 6 Grants Council Operating Budget Proposal We believe that the changes in the Council structure, with a total of 18 members, represent a significant step in the right direction. We think that the addition of new roles, such as audit reviewers, can help lighten the workload of the current reviewers. The proposed 610 k OP for operational expenses is higher than what was approved in the previous season, but considering that there will be at least 3 rounds during season 6 (each lasting between 3 and 4 weeks), unlike the 2 rounds in season 5 , we understand that this increase may be necessary since more applications are expected throughout the 3 rounds.
  Likes: 2 Replies: 0
  Likers: Pumbi, delphine
  No replies yet.
• SEEDGov - Delegate Communication Thread by Joxes - No Role
  Posted on: June 25, 2024, 1:14 p.m.
  Content: Cycle # 23 a Below, we present the rationale from the SEED Latam delegation for our voting during cycle # 23 a. Protocol Upgrade # 7 : Fault Proofs 2 : Abstained. [FINAL] Protocol Upgrade # 7 : Fault Proofs After carefully reviewing the proposal, we decided to abstain as a way to differentiate from a straightforward vote FOR. This is because we highly value the reputational risk involved with this proposal and want to minimize it. This means that in our assessment, Fault Proofs definitely need to happen at some point, but considering other security contests that are set to launch in the coming weeks, it makes sense to us that Fault Proofs deployment is not yet necessary. We believe that Fault Proofs as a whole, and the measures taken at the design level to convert OP Mainnet into a Stage 1 rollup, are correct. While the Guardian Role still holds central power, the setup designed around it makes sense to accomplish their expected function. Finally, as we always emphasize, we hope that any findings regarding the Fault Proof protocol that could compromise its functionality or require alterations to its proposed design will be promptly communicated and the upgrade rescheduled accordingly. Upgrade # 8 : Guardian, Security Council Threshold and L 2 ProxyAdmin Ownership changes for Stage 1 Decentralization: In favor. [FINAL] Protocol Upgrade # 8 : Guardian, Security Council Threshold and L 2 ProxyAdmin Ownership changes for Stage 1 Decentralization We believe it is important to continue moving towards the decentralization of the Guardian, as we see the role as a single point of failure. However, we consider beneficial increasing the Security Council Safe’s signing threshold from 4 to 10 out of 13 , as this reduces the risk of having a single point of failure. Governor Update Proposal # 2 : Improvements to advanced delegation allowance calculations: In favor. [FINAL] Governor Update Proposal # 2 : Improvements to advanced delegation allowance calculations This changes on the governor goes to the right direction, we’re happy to see live such improvements and requested features. Code of Conduct Council (CoCC) Operating Budget for Season 6 : Against. [FINAL] Code of Conduct Council (CoCC) Operating Budget for Season 6 After carefully reviewing the proposal, we’ve noted several considerations to make this decision. While we acknowledge the efforts made to refine the CoC, we do not find these changes sufficient to warrant the proposed budget increase and grow their structure. We believe that the increase in the budget and the number of members is not justified by the activities during Season 5 . This proposed structure looks more like a experiment, but worth to explore under other processes (let’s say ad-honorem positions to be rewared via retroPGF if they have success). Therefore, not enough arguments are provided to makes this change reasonable to approve, or at least explaining the risks associated for Season 6 if no changes are made (let’s say, leaving the CoC Council as it). Season 6 : Intents Ratification: In favor on both ratification and budget proposals. Season 6 : Intents Ratification We think the scope for Intent 1 makes sense for now, as aligning Optimism’s goals with core developers and external teams might be challenging when referring to OP Stack development. In this regard, the work accumulated in Season 5 suffices for now and demostrate how difficult is to find alignment. Thus, we believe the GovFund making focus on decentralizing governance processes is reasonable. Regarding Intents 2 , we agree that we’re currently in the stage where the efforts must be done from a very well-focused strategy. and for Intents 3 , clearly pushing for more developer growth within the Superchain and launching applications is very positive and need to continue. About budgets, they seem appropriate for us and we have no comments in this regard. Season 6 : Developer Advisory Board Renewal: voting for Zach Obront. Zach Obront - Developer Advisory Board Operating Budget The budget for the DAB was 70 k in season 5 , while now a budget between 90 k and 122 k is being requested. Therefore, the percentage increases compared to the previous season’s budget range from 28 . 57 % to 74 . 29 %. Ed Mazurek’s option offers timely feedback on technical issues. Although the DAB’s comments were very general and focused only on the winning proposals, we are not entirely sure that the additional amount requested justifies the increases. By evaluating all the arits: expertise, previous involvement, budget requested, proposed work structure and KPIs, looks appropiate for this Season. We want to thank the efforts made by Ed Mazurek, happy to keep seeing him involved in other instances in the governance. Season 6 : Grants Council Operating Budget: In favor. Season 6 Grants Council Operating Budget Proposal We believe that the changes in the Council structure, with a total of 18 members, represent a significant step in the right direction. We think that the addition of new roles, such as audit reviewers, can help lighten the workload of the current reviewers. The proposed 610 k OP for operational expenses is higher than what was approved in the previous season, but considering that there will be at least 3 rounds during season 6 (each lasting between 3 and 4 weeks), unlike the 2 rounds in season 5 , we understand that this increase may be necessary since more applications are expected throughout the 3 rounds.
  Likes: 2 Replies: 0
  Likers: Pumbi, delphine
  No replies yet.
• Ratification of Profit Definition for Round 4 by Joxes - No Role
  Posted on: June 24, 2024, 11:11 p.m.
  Content: As a citizen, I voted No on the proposed profit definition. I support many of the arguments for why not implementing this definition is appropite. While I can understand and partially agree with considering Grants as a variable for allocating Retro Funds (not talking about the approach presente), ultimately, I suggest being extremely careful about the signal we are sending here. As it is mentioned above, in the past, Grants at Optimism have taken an approach where they do not entirely seek to allocate all the project’s value via the Governance Fund, which ensures that in terms of accountability, not everything is responsible for the grant program but also makes projects look to deliver+make real impact inmediately. So anything lacking in funding is supplemented and more in Retro Funding, if executed well (it was suggested somewhere to divide 50 / 50 %). So, risks of failure are still presented for any project: total resources spent vs. any return. This means that Grants are treated more as subsidies for things that the Optimism ecosystem really wants to see working and is willing to partially finance, nothing to do with committing gains/impact rewards upfront. In the specific case of Growth and Experiments, I believe it is more related to measuring impact after the incentive program ends as a factor to determine if the project maintains some user retention, rather than penalizing them simply for having received a boost via Governance/Foundation Funds. So, I see two key interrelated aspects in order to have more effective iterative processes: Predictability about the funding roadmap: I don’t think it’s entirely good that projects that have already applied for a grant are suddenly notified that they will be deducted a percentage of whatever they have done afterward. Even if the Retro Funding strategy pivots to take this into account, this invariant should be informed first in order to the next grants program accomodate for. No more isolation: looking at the big picture, all this discussion looks more like a demostration we need more coordination between both houses, Token and Citizen. I believe that any OP grants program should have partial synergy with Retro Funding, or things will continue to fall out of sync. For all these reasons and considering that Retro Funding 4 has had a series of radical changes in other areas, I believe it is appropriate to go forward with the fallback definition.
  Likes: 2 Replies: 0
  Likers: joanbp, Pumbi
  No replies yet.
• Upgrade Proposal: Fault Proofs by Joxes - No Role
  Posted on: May 28, 2024, 12:43 a.m.
  Content: Hey @zachobront, thanks for sharing your perspective on this proposal. We appreciate it, especially given your position. Many, if not all, of the risks you described are very valid points. As far as I know, the proposal follows the previously published audit framework 4 , falling into the safety and reputational category. A bug does not immediately compromise the system since it implements various defensive mechanisms, including the Guardian setup itself. Therefore, some bugs are expected, and the security setup needs to be prepared for them. zachobront: look forward to voting yes later in the summer when the risks have been addressed. Right now, I would appreciate having a complete understanding of your perspective. If this upgrade does not move forward, what would be viable actions to resubmit it? Should we wait for the audit contest to be completed or pay for a new audit? I am happy to see a careful evaluation here, reconciling the security efforts made by core developers with what is believed to be concretely left to do. It is impossible to determine when code is completely bug-free, even with several audits completed. However, we should ensure that our reputation is not easily put at risk (e.g., if several bugs are found shortly after implementation). For us, if there is a clear risk that we can feasibly avoid, we should make every effort to mitigate it. I love seeing these conversations happen and am happy that other delegates share their perspectives based on what is described above. CC: L 2 Beat team @kaereste and @GFXlabs, as well others.
  Likes: 4 Replies: 1
  Likers: AxlVaz, zachobront, Luckyhooman.eth, delphine
  Replies:

  • zachobront: Hi @Joxes — thanks so much for the thoughtful response. I’ll do my best to share specific details of my thinking below, but please let me know anywhere you disagree or you feel my explanation is unclear. Joxes: As far as I know, the proposal follows the previously published audit framework, falling into the safety and reputational category. I largely agree with your assessment here. The core Fault Dispute Game (because of the training wheels) is probably best described by the Safety / Reputational quadrant, which seems to have undefined behavior in the audit framework. But there is a subtle and important distinction in what is meant by training wheels. The current safeguards require proactive action to block a fraudulent proposal. It’s important to recognize that any “black swan” risk to this off chain system would immediately move all Fault Dispute Game code into the Safety / Existential quadrant. I assume the recent SEAL Wargames focused on the robustness of these systems, but we can’t have the same auditable security guarantees for an off chain system requiring human intervention as on chain code. Joxes: Right now, I would appreciate having a complete understanding of your perspective. If this upgrade does not move forward, what would be viable actions to resubmit it? Should we wait for the audit contest to be completed or pay for a new audit? My perspective is that at least one high quality audit is required for the (large) reputational risk and (small) safety risk to be worthwhile. I believe waiting for the already funded audit contest in mid July is the most effective way to do that. As long as that contest doesn’t uncover a large amount of deep issues requiring major rewrites, I would be comfortable voting yes as soon as it’s complete. Tane: According to Adrian’s clarification, the deployment will be coordinated with the security council and if the fact that the Fault Dispute Game isn’t fully audited is deemed a blocker, we can delay the deployment in July? We believe we can vote for the proposal and time the deployment appropriately, relying on the judgement and coordination by the council and OP Labs. For further clarity, I would like to state that I am 100% on board with @Tane suggestion here. If OP Labs decides to time the deployment for after the scheduled audit, that would be sufficient for me to feel comfortable with the current proposal.