Profile of kaereste in Optimism
Posts by kaereste
-
[Mission Request] Increase Prevalence of Non-USD/EURO Stablecoins
by kaereste - No Role
Posted on: Oct. 9, 2024, 8:56 a.m.
Content: The following reflects the views of L 2 BEAT’s governance team, composed of @kaereste and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We’re voting in support of this Mission Request.
In our opinion local stablecoins could work as an enabler for a many crypto use cases in local economies, we see it first hand in non-EUR EU and from our discussions with builders it seems this could be the case in other parts of the world as well.
Our only concern with this MR is the very small amount allocated to it, but even with that in mind we think it makes sense to give it a try and start a discussion around this topic that may continue with a larger program in the future seasons.
Likes: 4
Replies: 0
No replies yet.
-
Season 6: Security Council Elections - Cohort A
by kaereste - No Role
Posted on: Aug. 31, 2024, 7:42 p.m.
Content: The following reflects the views of L 2 BEAT’s governance team, composed of @kaereste and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We’ve decided to divide our vote between 6 candidates, whom we’ve selected based on our internal assessment of their fit for the Security Council.
As we’ve done in the past with Security Council elections in other ecosystems, we looked through all the nominees’ applications and assessed each of them based on a few criteria we’ve decided as relevant. On a high level, the 4 criteria that helped us drive our decision were:
Strong technical knowledge
It’s imperative for each member of the security council to be able to independently verify what they’re signing and understand the underlying technology and code. We are willing to support members who bring other skills, like deep knowledge of legal implications, that add significant value to the Security Council.
Reputation at stake
While we respect the wish for some community members to remain anonymous, we believe that members of the Security Council should have their identities known so that if they misbehave or fail to act on time, they risk slashing their public reputation. We are generally only willing to make an exception for well-known anons with exceptional reputations.
No connection to OP Labs or Optimism Foundation.
We wanted to limit support for individuals or entities related to the original founding team (OP Labs & Optimism Foundation) as we believe the Security Council should serve as a third-party guardian that protects the protocol’s users.
Location
Security Council members should be spread around the world to cover most time zones and various jurisdictions as that would help with reaction speed in case of emergency and would mitigate the risk of legal implications.
Based on that, we’ve voted in favor of the following candidates:
@ethernaut
@nanexcool
@pablito.eth
@emiliano
@troy
@sam.ng
Furthermore, we would like to thank all the candidates for running in this election. We would like to emphasize that the bar was set quite high in this election, which is great considering the importance of the Security Council.
Likes: 2
Replies: 0
No replies yet.
-
Upgrade Proposal #10: Granite Network Upgrade
by kaereste - No Role
Posted on: Aug. 28, 2024, 2:53 p.m.
Content: Apparently I was confused about the deadline for this proposal, I was certain that it ends 7 pm UTC but it ended few minutes before me posting the rationale. However, the vote still passed and we were supportive of it so no harm done, but I am sorry about it and we will make sure to vote earlier in the future to avoid such cases.
Likes: 1
Replies: 0
No replies yet.
-
Upgrade Proposal #10: Granite Network Upgrade
by kaereste - No Role
Posted on: Aug. 28, 2024, 2:31 p.m.
Content: The following reflects the views of L 2 BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We’ll be voting FOR this proposal as we find it important to fix the already known bugs in the production environment. However, we would like to raise our concern as to whether the current approach of releasing early and relying on fallback mechanism to prevent anything bad to happen is the right one.
As @Zachobront mentioned in a comment under the Protocol Upgrade # 7 proposal, the Foundation’s approach to the fault dispute mechanism poses a reputational risk. As it was proven, Zach’s concerns were on point, and we now had to revert to the permission fallback mechanism while the bugs found in the fault dispute mechanism are patched.
While it might not seem like a big deal, given users’ funds were not at risk due to fallbacks, it actually is since there’s a very thin line between the current situation and a case where the Security Council is needed to secure the chain.
Luca Donnoh, a researcher at L 2 BEAT, has written an article 4 that explains the risks associated with potential lack of trust in the fault proof mechanism:
… Even if the protocol requires a lot of funds to be pooled to protect it, one can argue that finding liquidity is not a difficult task since it eventually guarantees very high profits, assuming that the proof system works correctly. We argue that this assumption shouldn’t be taken lightly. Let’s say that an attacker actually spends billions of dollars to attack a protocol, and then signals on a social or with an onchain message that they found a bug in the challenge protocol where defenders are guaranteed to lose their funds. No one knows if the bug actually exists or if it’s just a bluff, but it can be used as an effective deterrent to prevent reaching the target amount of funds needed to save the chain. …
In simple terms, while the approach of deploying early and “testing in production” is safe in terms of there’s no (or very limited) risk to users’ funds as there are fallback mechanisms in place, we feel that if it leads to continuous instances where we actually have to use those fallbacks, it can damage confidence in the design of the system in the long run, and therefore make it much harder to get it working in a Stage 2 environment where no such fallbacks will be available.
Likes: 6
Replies: 0
No replies yet.
-
Rolling Mission Requests
by kaereste - No Role
Posted on: Aug. 22, 2024, 8:01 a.m.
Content: I am an Optimism delegate with sufficient voting power, and I believe this proposal is ready to move to a vote.
Likes: 1
Replies: 0
No replies yet.
-
Security Council Nomination: Andrey Petrov
by kaereste - No Role
Posted on: Aug. 19, 2024, 1:45 p.m.
Content: I am an Optimism delegate with sufficient voting power and I believe this Security Council self-nomination is ready to move to a vote.
Likes: 1
Replies: 0
No replies yet.
-
Security Council Member Nomination: Corey Petty (corpetty.eth)
by kaereste - No Role
Posted on: Aug. 19, 2024, 1:44 p.m.
Content: I am an Optimism delegate with sufficient voting power and I believe this proposal is ready to move to a vote. I’ve been following Corey for some time already and I think he would be a valuable nominee for the Security Council elections.
Likes: 1
Replies: 0
No replies yet.
-
Security Council Nomination: Remco Bloemen from Worldcoin Foundation
by kaereste - No Role
Posted on: Aug. 19, 2024, 1:40 p.m.
Content: I am an Optimism delegate with sufficient voting power and I believe this nomination is ready to move to a vote.
Likes: 0
Replies: 0
No likes yet.
No replies yet.
-
Security Council Member Nomination: Troy
by kaereste - No Role
Posted on: Aug. 19, 2024, 1:39 p.m.
Content: I am an Optimism delegate with sufficient voting power and I believe this proposal is ready to move to a vote.
Likes: 0
Replies: 0
No likes yet.
No replies yet.
-
Season 6 Elections: Code of Conduct Council
by kaereste - No Role
Posted on: Aug. 8, 2024, 8:29 a.m.
Content: The following reflects the views of L 2 BEAT’s governance team, composed of @kaereste and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
After reviewing all applications and assessing each nominee’s relevant experience, we decided to cast our vote for the following people:
Bubli.eth
CryptoReuMD
Oxytocin
Pumbi
fujiar
Unfortunately, our vote was erroneously cast as ‘Abstain’ instead of in favor of the people we wanted to vote for. We are not sure why that happened (when casting the vote we thought all was good), but it seems it was some kind of an interface glitch. We contacted Agora as soon as we found out, but it couldn’t be undone.
We suggested Agora two changes that could be implemented in the future to make sure that this does not happen again:
ideally, it should be possible to change the vote after it has been cast, but we understand that this is a major change that requires further discussion
as a quick fix it might make sense to have a separate confirmation step after all the choices and comments have been made but before the UI asks for signing the transaction, that way the user would be presented with the exact vote that he is going to cast and sign in the next step
We apologise to anyone affected by this error, it was not intentional.
Likes: 6
Replies: 0
No replies yet.
