Disclaimer: The views expressed here are my own and do not represent the Grants Council, Govnerds, Feedback Commission, or any other governance entity I am involved with.
I am signing the petition, but I want to provide clarity on what I am supporting by doing so. I agree with GFXlabs on some points and also believe the Foundation plays an essential role in ensuring the success of this process.
1. Decentralization of OP Governance (Phase I)
I fully support the need for governance to gain more control, especially over the OP token and governance contract. However, I believe the Foundation should present a clearer roadmap toward this decentralization. This roadmap should include checkpoints, allowing the collective to evaluate progress and adjust if necessary, but it must set clear expectations about where we are heading and how long each step will take.
2. Governance Fund and ETH Control
While I understand GFX’s call for immediate governance over these funds, I believe the Foundation should retain control for now. However, I suggest establishing a Treasury Council, initially overseen by the Foundation, which gains more autonomy over the seasons as it becomes battle-tested. This approach strikes a balance between decentralization and ensuring the security of these resources. The Treasury Council could start by handling grants approved by the Grants Council. In line with the Foundation’s example, I believe the Grants Council is gaining too much power, and decentralizing oversight would allow both the Treasury Council and the Grants Council to oversee and check each other, fostering a more balanced governance structure.
3. Bridge Assets Utilization
I agree that bridge assets should be under governance control, but not primarily to generate revenue. The key reason is to avoid unilateral decisions made by non-governance actors. Again, this should be managed by a Treasury Council to ensure that the governance process is respected while protecting users and network stability.
4. Sequencer Decentralization Plan
I support the need for a sequencer decentralization plan, as outlined by GFX. However, I do not agree with setting a firm handover date for Q2 2025. Instead, I believe the Foundation should propose a 3-year roadmap with annual evaluations to hold them accountable. The timeline must be flexible and based on the maturity and readiness of governance.
5. Business Strategy Critique
GFX raises a valid point about fee revenue becoming unsustainable over time. Additionally, chains can adjust fee margins to attract users, which contradicts the proposed 15% fee revenue from chains to integrate into the Superchain. This is a crucial issue that needs to be addressed, especially if we are to sustain long-term value within the ecosystem.
6. Complete Decentralization by Summer 2025
I agree with the Foundation that this deadline is likely too fast. However, it would be beneficial to set a deadline and revisit it once we reach that point. A hard deadline may be unrealistic, but a target gives us something to work toward, with the flexibility to revise based on real-world progress.
In conclusion, while I support this push for decentralization and will sign the petition, I believe a measured and well-planned approach is essential to success. I’m a firm believer that The Foundation’s involvement can ensure we decentralize responsibly.