Profile of lavande in Optimism
Posts by lavande
-
The Collective Feedback Commission: The Next Iteration
by lavande - This user is a moderator
Posted on: Oct. 25, 2024, 4:34 a.m.
Content: Season 7 Membership has been posted here and will run from ~November 2024 - June 2025 .
All members will be contact by @op_julian from the Foundation team to complete an opt-in form and KYC. Members that opt-in by November 1 st will receive an email invite to an onboarding call hosted on November 4 th at 15 : 00 GMT.
While we can’t select everybody to participate, there are many avenues for community feedback and contribution, and the Commission is just one. The Foundation remains committed to actively incorporating community feedback, regardless of where it comes from. We are likely to continue experimenting with different selection methods which may result in different members in the future.
Likes: 7
Replies: 0
No replies yet.
-
The Collective Feedback Commission: The Next Iteration
by lavande - This user is a moderator
Posted on: Oct. 25, 2024, 4:34 a.m.
Content: Season 7 Membership has been posted here 24 and will run from ~November 2024 - June 2025 .
All members will be contact by @op_julian from the Foundation team to complete an opt-in form and KYC. Members that opt-in by November 1 st will receive an email invite to an onboarding call hosted on November 4 th at 15 : 00 GMT.
While we can’t select everybody to participate, there are many avenues for community feedback and contribution, and the Commission is just one. The Foundation remains committed to actively incorporating community feedback, regardless of where it comes from. We are likely to continue experimenting with different selection methods which may result in different members in the future.
Likes: 7
Replies: 0
No replies yet.
-
Optimism Working Models for Decentralization
by lavande - This user is a moderator
Posted on: Oct. 16, 2024, 9:11 a.m.
Content: Sure, you are correct that Column C in the milestone model does reference specific decision modules in the Decision Diagram to which those milestones relate. If it refers to multiple decision modules, it means those milestones are related to that entire set of decisions (protocol upgrade implementation spans multiple decisions, for example.)
The loom 4 video walk through attempts to explain this as well :slight_smile:
Likes: 4
Replies: 0
No replies yet.
-
Optimism Working Models for Decentralization
by lavande - This user is a moderator
Posted on: Oct. 16, 2024, 9:11 a.m.
Content: Sure, you are correct that Column C in the milestone model does reference specific decision modules in the Decision Diagram to which those milestones relate. If it refers to multiple decision modules, it means those milestones are related to that entire set of decisions (protocol upgrade implementation spans multiple decisions, for example.)
The loom video walk through attempts to explain this as well :slight_smile:
Likes: 4
Replies: 0
No replies yet.
-
Accelerated Decentralization Proposal For Optimism
by lavande - This user is a moderator
Posted on: Oct. 16, 2024, 5:14 a.m.
Content: Hi all! Related to the topic above, we’ve just published a post outlining two working models for decentralization. There is a lot of information in here but we’ve linked to video walk throughs of each model and the Foundation will also host an AMA on Thursday to answer questions (check the public governance calendar 3 !)
Optimism Working Models for Decentralization Metagovernance
Optimism Working Models for Decentralization
In the recent weeks, the community has started an important conversation about the Collective’s path towards full decentralization. The Foundation remains fully committed to this transition over the course of multiple years, as originally outlined in our Working Constitution. We’ve realized that the context gap between the Foundation and the community about this path is too wide. Below, we introduce several working models intended to narrow this gap:
…
Likes: 8
Replies: 0
No replies yet.
-
Accelerated Decentralization Proposal For Optimism
by lavande - This user is a moderator
Posted on: Sept. 23, 2024, 6:40 a.m.
Content:
LuukDAO:
I like the tangible steps of mapping and defining what training wheels need to come off, the minimum requirements (and nice to have"s) before they can be taken off, and openly collaborating to progress this shared roadmap, which is the best way forward.
Hi @LuukDAO - I wanted to let you know that the Foundation has drafted something very similar to what you/@ccerv 1 describe above. This “decentralization milestones framework” is currently under review by the Collective Feedback Commission 3 and we plan to publish it soon, after incorporating their input. I’d be happy to discuss about how we might collaborate on refining that framework and/or monitoring our progress towards different milestones, as that will be an important part of holding the Foundation accountable to this framework.
Likes: 10
Replies: 2
Replies:
- LuukDAO: Great! Glad to hear this is already in motion, and we’re eager to help refine and operate the framework.
Can DM via forum or mail to op@superchain.eco
- SEEDGov: 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 L1 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 Q2 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.
ccerv1:
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.
ccerv1:
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.
-
Accelerated Decentralization Proposal For Optimism
by lavande - This user is a moderator
Posted on: Sept. 23, 2024, 6:40 a.m.
Content:
LuukDAO:
I like the tangible steps of mapping and defining what training wheels need to come off, the minimum requirements (and nice to have"s) before they can be taken off, and openly collaborating to progress this shared roadmap, which is the best way forward.
Hi @LuukDAO - I wanted to let you know that the Foundation has drafted something very similar to what you/@ccerv 1 describe above. This “decentralization milestones framework” is currently under review by the Collective Feedback Commission and we plan to publish it soon, after incorporating their input. I’d be happy to discuss about how we might collaborate on refining that framework and/or monitoring our progress towards different milestones, as that will be an important part of holding the Foundation accountable to this framework.
Likes: 10
Replies: 2
Replies:
- LuukDAO: Great! Glad to hear this is already in motion, and we’re eager to help refine and operate the framework.
Can DM via forum or mail to op@superchain.eco
- SEEDGov: 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 L1 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 Q2 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.
ccerv1:
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.
ccerv1:
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.
-
About the Foundation Budgets category
by lavande - This user is a moderator
Posted on: Sept. 18, 2024, 3:24 p.m.
Content: (Replace this first paragraph with a brief description of your new category. This guidance will appear in the category selection area, so try to keep it below 200 characters.)
Use the following paragraphs for a longer description, or to establish category guidelines or rules:
Why should people use this category? What is it for?
How exactly is this different than the other categories we already have?
What should topics in this category generally contain?
Do we need this category? Can we merge with another category, or subcategory?
Likes: 0
Replies: 0
No likes yet.
No replies yet.
-
Rolling Mission Requests
by lavande - This user is a moderator
Posted on: Sept. 12, 2024, 10:29 a.m.
Content: Following up on the discussion about about full versus optimistic approval. The Agora platform doesn’t current have a way to combine optimistic + approval voting, so we will go ahead and run this using the usual approval voting process. If optimistic + approval voting is a use case that comes up more frequently in the future, we can consider adding that functionality but for now the team is focused on other pressing upgrades (like moving the gov fund onchain and interop!)
Likes: 3
Replies: 0
No replies yet.
-
Voting Cycle Roundup #27
by lavande - This user is a moderator
Posted on: Sept. 12, 2024, 8:13 a.m.
Content: Hi everyone! - I’ve been receiving questions about the rolling mission request approvals and wanted to clarify a few things:
The Grants Council should consider all requests for Sponsorship but does not have to accept any of those requests. Providing feedback on all proposed ideas would create an onerous review process to be conducted in addition to the grant review process they already run. The Grants Council was required to run grants processes for Mission Requests they didn’t sponsor in S 5 and it creates a principle-agent problem, which is why they ultimately have the discretion to choose which Mission Requests move to a vote.
The Mission Requests proposed by the Grants Council were also subject to rank voting among Council members, which prevents any member from unilaterally moving a Mission Request to a vote. Votes linked here: Voting Cycle Roundup # 27 - # 3 by Gonna.eth
All Mission Requests must be approval ranked / approved by the Token House, meaning ultimate authority still remains with the Token House. If you suspect any Mission Request is not in the best interest of the Collective, don’t approve it and comment with your concerns on the proposal forum post.
Members of the Grants Council will NOT be allowed to approve their own Mission Request proposals. This is different than the exception to the standard policy we made in the past, but I think is necessary as an additional measure against any self-dealing (and is consistent with our standard policy for all proposals outlined in the Optimist Expectations 1 .)
Teams are chosen by the Grants Council, and Grants Council members are required to abstain from voting on any Mission Applications they are conflicted on. All applications are reviewed by 6 different reviewers, which further limits self-dealing. In the future, we could consider preventing members (and affiliates) of the Grants Council from applying to a proposal they personally authored.
If you ever suspect self-dealing among representatives (Council members), please refer to the “representative removal” proposal type outlined in the Operating Manual 2 .
Likes: 1
Replies: 0
No replies yet.
