Profile of zk1t in Optimism
Posts by zk1t
-
Proposal for Enhancing $OP Token Liquidity Across Superchains
by zk1t - No Role
Posted on: March 18, 2024, 1:18 a.m.
Content: Proposal for Enhancing $OP Token Liquidity Across Superchains with Official and Trusted Initiatives Executive Summary This proposal urgently calls for the establishment of official, trusted mechanisms to improve the liquidity of the $OP governance token across the Optimism network and various superchains. As Optimism is central to enhancing Ethereum’s scalability, it is imperative to ensure $OP tokens are broadly available and accessible in a secure manner. The upcoming bull market and strategic movements by platforms like Coinbase to direct new users towards their L 2 solution, Base, amplify the necessity of this initiative. Addressing this need is vital for fostering a positive user experience, securing the ecosystem, and preparing for an influx of users to superchains. Context and Rationale The scalability solutions provided by Optimism, through optimistic rollups, have catalyzed the growth of an ecosystem that includes significant projects like Mode and Coinbase’s Base. The constrained liquidity of $OP tokens across superchains, paired with the potential for unofficial and insecure liquidity pools, presents a substantial risk to users—especially newcomers to the blockchain space. There are already liquidity poos being created on Aerodrome that have axlOP as a pair with extremely low liquidity ($ 90 K) and there is also the risk that malicious actors will create liquidity pools with fake $OP tokens to try and scam newer users. The anticipation of a bull market and Coinbase’s initiative to onboard new users to Base underscores the urgency to develop official and trusted liquidity solutions for $OP tokens. These steps will ensure user safety and enhance the overall user experience across the Optimism ecosystem. Potential Solutions Native $OP Support on Superchains: Investigate the feasibility of natively integrating $OP tokens across superchains. This could involve foundational research and development, potentially funded by the Optimism Foundation, to explore secure, efficient mechanisms for $OP token interoperability. Official Bridge Partnerships: Identify and collaborate with a select number of bridge partners, such as Axelar and LayerZero, to facilitate $OP token transfers. Providing substantial liquidity to these bridges can ensure a secure, seamless experience for users moving between chains. Sponsorship of Official Liquidity Pools: Either directly sponsor or incentivize the creation of official liquidity pools for $OP against popular stablecoins like USDC and major assets like WETH on all L 2 solutions within the Superchain ecosystem. This approach would guarantee reliable, safe access to $OP tokens for users across different platforms. Conclusion The need for official and trusted $OP token liquidity solutions has never been more pressing, with the anticipated bull market and strategic user onboarding initiatives by platforms like Coinbase. By prioritizing native support, official bridge partnerships, and sponsored liquidity pools, Optimism can safeguard its ecosystem, enhance user experiences, and solidify its position as a leader in scalable blockchain solutions. Implementing these strategies will prepare the Optimism ecosystem for the influx of new users, ensuring security, trust, and ease of access to $OP tokens across superchains.
Likes: 0
Replies: 0
No likes yet.
No replies yet.
-
Proposal for Enhancing $OP Token Liquidity Across Superchains
by zk1t - No Role
Posted on: March 17, 2024, 9:18 p.m.
Content: Proposal for Enhancing $OP Token Liquidity Across Superchains with Official and Trusted Initiatives
Executive Summary
This proposal urgently calls for the establishment of official, trusted mechanisms to improve the liquidity of the $OP governance token across the Optimism network and various superchains. As Optimism is central to enhancing Ethereum’s scalability, it is imperative to ensure $OP tokens are broadly available and accessible in a secure manner. The upcoming bull market and strategic movements by platforms like Coinbase to direct new users towards their L 2 solution, Base, amplify the necessity of this initiative. Addressing this need is vital for fostering a positive user experience, securing the ecosystem, and preparing for an influx of users to superchains.
Context and Rationale
The scalability solutions provided by Optimism, through optimistic rollups, have catalyzed the growth of an ecosystem that includes significant projects like Mode and Coinbase’s Base. The constrained liquidity of $OP tokens across superchains, paired with the potential for unofficial and insecure liquidity pools, presents a substantial risk to users—especially newcomers to the blockchain space. There are already liquidity poos being created on Aerodrome that have axlOP as a pair with extremely low liquidity ($ 90 K) and there is also the risk that malicious actors will create liquidity pools with fake $OP tokens to try and scam newer users. The anticipation of a bull market and Coinbase’s initiative to onboard new users to Base underscores the urgency to develop official and trusted liquidity solutions for $OP tokens. These steps will ensure user safety and enhance the overall user experience across the Optimism ecosystem.
Potential Solutions
Native $OP Support on Superchains: Investigate the feasibility of natively integrating $OP tokens across superchains. This could involve foundational research and development, potentially funded by the Optimism Foundation, to explore secure, efficient mechanisms for $OP token interoperability.
Official Bridge Partnerships: Identify and collaborate with a select number of bridge partners, such as Axelar and LayerZero, to facilitate $OP token transfers. Providing substantial liquidity to these bridges can ensure a secure, seamless experience for users moving between chains.
Sponsorship of Official Liquidity Pools: Either directly sponsor or incentivize the creation of official liquidity pools for $OP against popular stablecoins like USDC and major assets like WETH on all L 2 solutions within the Superchain ecosystem. This approach would guarantee reliable, safe access to $OP tokens for users across different platforms.
Conclusion
The need for official and trusted $OP token liquidity solutions has never been more pressing, with the anticipated bull market and strategic user onboarding initiatives by platforms like Coinbase. By prioritizing native support, official bridge partnerships, and sponsored liquidity pools, Optimism can safeguard its ecosystem, enhance user experiences, and solidify its position as a leader in scalable blockchain solutions. Implementing these strategies will prepare the Optimism ecosystem for the influx of new users, ensuring security, trust, and ease of access to $OP tokens across superchains.
Likes: 1
Replies: 0
No replies yet.
-
[DRAFT] Upgrade Proposal: Bedrock
by zk1t - No Role
Posted on: March 1, 2023, 12:57 a.m.
Content: Would like to bump this
Likes: 1
Replies: 0
No replies yet.
-
[DRAFT] Upgrade Proposal: Bedrock
by zk1t - No Role
Posted on: Feb. 28, 2023, 7:57 p.m.
Content: Would like to bump this
Likes: 1
Replies: 0
No replies yet.
-
Top 20% of delegates consolidate 82% of all delegated voting power. Is that concerning?
by zk1t - No Role
Posted on: Feb. 26, 2023, 11:25 p.m.
Content: Before applying a new governance system to a project like Optimism, it’s crucial to thoroughly examine and understand the various governance options available, along with their respective advantages and disadvantages. In my opinion, the specific governance system is less important than understanding the evolving needs of the system over time. Since Optimism is still in its early stages, it’s more akin to an early-stage startup than a mature society. Therefore, it’s vital to consider our short-term, medium-term, and long-term goals and determine what type of governance structure will best enable Optimism to achieve those objectives. For example, there are several pros and cons to consider when adopting a mechanism that allows any user to veto decisions in an early-stage company. On the one hand, allowing users to veto decisions can provide a greater sense of transparency and inclusivity in decision-making. It allows users to feel like they have a voice in the development process and can help build trust between the company and its users. However, there are also potential downsides to this approach. Allowing any user to veto a decision can create inefficiencies and slow down the decision-making process. It can also lead to paralysis by analysis, as decisions may be endlessly debated and delayed, ultimately preventing the company from making progress. Moreover, not all users may have the same level of technical knowledge and understanding of the company’s operations, which could lead to uninformed veto decisions that harm the company. In summary, while allowing users to veto decisions can have some benefits, it may be more practical to limit this mechanism to a smaller group of qualified individuals who have a deeper understanding of the technology and can make informed decisions that benefit the company as a whole.
Likes: 4
Replies: 0
No replies yet.
-
Top 20% of delegates consolidate 82% of all delegated voting power. Is that concerning?
by zk1t - No Role
Posted on: Feb. 26, 2023, 6:25 p.m.
Content: Before applying a new governance system to a project like Optimism, it’s crucial to thoroughly examine and understand the various governance options available, along with their respective advantages and disadvantages.
In my opinion, the specific governance system is less important than understanding the evolving needs of the system over time. Since Optimism is still in its early stages, it’s more akin to an early-stage startup than a mature society. Therefore, it’s vital to consider our short-term, medium-term, and long-term goals and determine what type of governance structure will best enable Optimism to achieve those objectives.
For example, there are several pros and cons to consider when adopting a mechanism that allows any user to veto decisions in an early-stage company.
On the one hand, allowing users to veto decisions can provide a greater sense of transparency and inclusivity in decision-making. It allows users to feel like they have a voice in the development process and can help build trust between the company and its users.
However, there are also potential downsides to this approach. Allowing any user to veto a decision can create inefficiencies and slow down the decision-making process. It can also lead to paralysis by analysis, as decisions may be endlessly debated and delayed, ultimately preventing the company from making progress. Moreover, not all users may have the same level of technical knowledge and understanding of the company’s operations, which could lead to uninformed veto decisions that harm the company.
In summary, while allowing users to veto decisions can have some benefits, it may be more practical to limit this mechanism to a smaller group of qualified individuals who have a deeper understanding of the technology and can make informed decisions that benefit the company as a whole.
Likes: 4
Replies: 0
No replies yet.
-
Top 20% of delegates consolidate 82% of all delegated voting power. Is that concerning?
by zk1t - No Role
Posted on: Feb. 12, 2023, 4:03 a.m.
Content: I agree, I think the end goal is probably to have more delegations and try to decentralize the power than any specific delegate has. While it’s not perfect, a good starting point could be to take a look at some democratic systems today and model delegation after that. I’m based in the US, so I understand that system the best. You have congress + senate, senate is set to 2 per state and congress is based on population but has a max number. Of course the US has 300 M people and 50 states, so there’s quite a few representatives. But this could be something to think about as the governance structure matures. My guess is that governance eventually evolves into a more decentralized system over time with many delegates that represent all sorts of view points. However, given that we’re so early and there probably aren’t THAT many differing opinions that people can have on the trajectory of this protocol, a fewer number of delegates might suffice.
Likes: 3
Replies: 1
Replies:
- 0xtassilo.eth: Good arguments! You’re probably right, that currently there are not so many different opinions that ppl can have in this case. However, once there are different opinions we accept that few ppl have loud voices. Decentralization is about leveling out power imbalances, which I see at risk here in the long term (5-10 years).
Don’t get me wrong I am very convinced of the delegate system. Otherwise gov participation will be insanely low. I am just in favor of more ppl having sth to say, than a few that have all to say This is the reason why I started engaging in governance.
Curious to see how things will evolve
-
Top 20% of delegates consolidate 82% of all delegated voting power. Is that concerning?
by zk1t - No Role
Posted on: Feb. 11, 2023, 11:03 p.m.
Content: I agree, I think the end goal is probably to have more delegations and try to decentralize the power than any specific delegate has. While it’s not perfect, a good starting point could be to take a look at some democratic systems today and model delegation after that. I’m based in the US, so I understand that system the best.
You have congress + senate, senate is set to 2 per state and congress is based on population but has a max number. Of course the US has 300 M people and 50 states, so there’s quite a few representatives. But this could be something to think about as the governance structure matures.
My guess is that governance eventually evolves into a more decentralized system over time with many delegates that represent all sorts of view points. However, given that we’re so early and there probably aren’t THAT many differing opinions that people can have on the trajectory of this protocol, a fewer number of delegates might suffice.
Likes: 3
Replies: 1
Replies:
- 0xtassilo.eth: Good arguments! You’re probably right, that currently there are not so many different opinions that ppl can have in this case. However, once there are different opinions we accept that few ppl have loud voices. Decentralization is about leveling out power imbalances, which I see at risk here in the long term (5-10 years).
Don’t get me wrong I am very convinced of the delegate system. Otherwise gov participation will be insanely low. I am just in favor of more ppl having sth to say, than a few that have all to say This is the reason why I started engaging in governance.
Curious to see how things will evolve
