First let me introduce myself. My name is Alex Soto, and I’m Mexican and a stubborn optimist.
I am an independent facilitator and consultant on organizational development topics with a focus on self-management (Teal, Sociocracy, NVC, etc.)
I am co-founder of Matriz, a community of freelancers, entrepreneurs, and early-stage collectives that seek to increase the impact of our work through collaboration and mutualization of resources.
I have been participating in the Optimism collective since 2023 and have been an active contributor since season 6 (where I was a member of the Code of Conduct Council and went through the govNERDs contribution path training).
My decision to become a delegate came from having taken the Super Contributor Cohort 0 and recognizing that I had gained enough context to feel comfortable voting on topics.
Although it is clear to me that I am still on a learning path, I consider that I have both the criteria and the experience to take a more active role.
To this day, only I have self-delegated the tokens that I hold. I will be honored when that changes, and others begin to consider me as an option to delegate their duties to. I am committed to maintaining transparency and communication to ensure that this is a fruitful relationship.
Conflict of Interest Disclosure
I am a co-founder of Matriz
I am a co-founder of Opus Collective
I am a member of the following communities: Metagov, OpenCivics, Open Collective, Commons Stack, Frutero Club.
Season 7: Intent Ratification
→ I accept the intent defined for this season, and I celebrate that it is only one (since it promotes greater focus and synergy).
ACC
Season 7: Anticapture Commission Amendment
→ I recognize the value of the ACC but I wonder how static the group of top 100 delegates is. How do we prevent it from solidifying into a power group? How do we promote rotation?
Season 7: Security Council Operating Budget [Onchain]
→ I attended the Budgets Discussion by L2BEATS and it seems to me that there is a lot of reasoning behind each of these proposals, and I trust their judgment.
My only observation is the difference in the range of amounts selected for the compensation of certain roles. I think it would be very valuable if it was better justified where it comes from compared to the value that that profile has in the market or any other process they have done to arrive at that amount.
COCC
Code of Conduct Council Dissolution Proposal
→ Having been a member of the Code of Conduct Council, I support this proposal for dissolution as it seems to me that a representative structure is not the best way to promote the rules of engagement.
Proposals I abstained from:
Decision Market Mission [Onchain]
→ While I find the experiment interesting (and it could bring a lot of value to the collective), I find it confusing to understand why this amount comes from the governance fund and is not considered a mission of the foundation (especially if it is work carried out by external actors). I think more information needs to be shared, so I do not feel comfortable adding to the quorum.
I’ll start by saying that making these decisions was a difficult task because I think everyone has great profiles. I’m very excited to see that the group is attracting such capable and talented people.
In general terms, I think I prioritized people who have previously served on boards, with a high level of participation and context. I would like to emphasize that I found it difficult to understand the availability of those people who represent a larger team. Comparing people to organizations seems dissonant to me.
I am also confident that our collective intelligence will ensure that the best candidates are chosen. So be it.
Sov
→ I am prioritizing people with a high level of context and with previous participation in other councils, hoping that they will have a broader perspective in that decision-making.
GFX Lab
→ I am prioritizing the profiles that, in my perception, have greater availability and focus for the OP collective, beyond having a great track record in web3.
I abstained to vote
→ because: I don’t think I have enough context to make this decision. I would point out that I find it confusing to compare people to organizations (especially those chains belonging to the superchain). How do we know who is really involved?
I voted for
→ I find it understandable and appropriate to integrate lessons that have emerged along the way, and I agree that meeting the ‘Standard Rollup Charter criteria’ is something we should promote, especially if we seek interoperability.
As always, I welcome any comments or reactions you may have, which may help me to better understand the situation.
I voted for this proposal
→ It seems to me that this is just to formalize something that already happens in reality; so we are only looking for the official seal.
I voted for this proposal
→ This new upgrade process aims to unify contract versions across different op chains in the superchain, something that aligns with the essence of interoperability, our intent this season.
I voted for this proposal
→ The Budget Board is central to decentralizing economic decisions—especially relevant as Optimism moves towards more automated and data-driven governance.
While I agree with the comments about how the initial set of criteria is too limited (and prevents talent turnover), I also believe that ensuring the continuity of highly experienced people in roles (once the learning curve has been overcome) is also valuable and should not be underestimated.
→ because I see these changes as an attempt to adapt the written agreement to the real needs of the moment and the emerging responsibilities of the DAB. I see no reason not to move forward.
→ because I believe the changes are appropriate and reflect the lessons learned from last season. I welcome the simplification of the number of members and the division of responsibilities.
→ to maintain continuity in leadership and alignment with the rest of the representative structures. I see how things worked well last season, and I see no reason to change that.
→ I understand that this change will help preserve the integrity of proposal outcomes and align voting behavior with intent. I see no reason not to do so.
→ because I see this as one more step towards achieving our S8-9 intent, and I see no reason not to take it. I also appreciate the team’s willingness to clarify questions and bring non-technical members into the conversation.
I voted for
→ All of these councils are essential to the collective. Even with the limitation this may have (since it exceeds the cap), I prefer to highlight everyone’s work equally.
I voted for
→ IMO, there is currently confusion about the usefulness of such a structure, and I believe halting its work may enable a better co-design space to identify the gap it leaves.
Elections:
→ I’m choosing based on the level of participation I perceive from the forum and meeting activity. I’d like to reward involvement, willingness to focus, and continuity of processes.
