Special Voting Cycle #16a
Anticapture Commission
We voted FOR
We believe this is an interesting experiment in safeguarding the collective. Although the commission seems somewhat counterintuitive (giving the people who already have voting power more voting power?), the people who qualified in practice tend to be very active and aligned members of the collective. Further, the office hours requirements of the commission will require these top delegates to become more transparent and useful to the rest of the collective. This is an experiment and should be treated as such, allowing us to identify what is useful and discard what is not. The biggest worry of this commission is that it is ineffective/wasteful, and yet tries to justify its own existence. We are currently not too worried about this, as none of the members of the commission receive compensation for this extra work.
Does it fulfill our mission?
“We strive to promote equitable, inclusive, sustainable, and effective community ownership and governance of key web3 infrastructure through thoughtful and researched decision-making and community engagement.”
Yes. Experimentation in community ownership (although admittedly not very inclusive).
Developer Advisory Board Budget and Ratification of Members
We voted FOR (for both)
These developers, simply put, are goated. We would like to see metrics regarding how often they are utilized during their tenure, and perhaps surveys on how useful they are to the community they serve. Compensation is reasonable as long as the board actually serves useful.
Does it fulfill our mission?
“We strive to promote equitable, inclusive, sustainable, and effective community ownership and governance of key web3 infrastructure through thoughtful and researched decision-making and community engagement.”
Yes. Makes community governance more effective.
Grants Council Operating Budget Proposal
We voted FOR
Dane is the only one who proposed a budget, also, he seems trustworthy as he has been serving in this capacity for a while. His upgrades also appear reasonable and thoroughly justified. In the future there’s should be some dashboard on Optimism Finances for delegates to assess these budgets
Does it fulfill our mission?
“We strive to promote equitable, inclusive, sustainable, and effective community ownership and governance of key web3 infrastructure through thoughtful and researched decision-making and community engagement.”
Yes.
Code of Conduct Council Budget
We voted FOR
The Collective has been asking for a community solution to enforcing code of conduct solutions for a while now, as having to trust the Foundation has proved unsatisfactory (case in point, the Carlos Melgar alleged violation). We believe this is a worthy cause to allocate budget towards.
Does it fulfill our mission?
“We strive to promote equitable, inclusive, sustainable, and effective community ownership and governance of key web3 infrastructure through thoughtful and researched decision-making and community engagement.”
Yes.
Security Council: Vote #1 - Change to Security Model
We voted FOR
Good first step towards placing full trust of the protocol in the Collective’s hands. It’s also a gradual change, since the Foundation still has to approve any upgrades in the 2/2 multisig model.
Does it fulfill our mission?
“We strive to promote equitable, inclusive, sustainable, and effective community ownership and governance of key web3 infrastructure through thoughtful and researched decision-making and community engagement.”
Yes.
Code of Conduct Violation: Carlos Melgar
We voted AGAINST
Good rationale given in discussion. Essentially, there is not enough info for us as delegates to properly assess the situation. We do not find this a legitimate process through which to suspend someone.
Does it fulfill our mission?
“We strive to promote equitable, inclusive, sustainable, and effective community ownership and governance of key web3 infrastructure through thoughtful and researched decision-making and community engagement.”
Yes.
Special Voting Cycle #16b
Season 5: Intents Budget Proposal
We voted FOR
Dane was receptive to feedback, and the budget seems reasonable given Season 4 numbers.
Does it fulfill our mission?
“We strive to promote equitable, inclusive, sustainable, and effective community ownership and governance of key web3 infrastructure through thoughtful and researched decision-making and community engagement.”
Yes.
Chain Delegation Program
We voted FOR
We think that OP chains are important stakeholders without much representation currently, and we think this could be a good counter to the OP collective perhaps having an OP Mainnet centric attitude. We worry about OP chains eventually being overrepresented as they start creating revenue, but this is a terminating experiment that could potentially be valuable. We should monitor to determine what type of outcomes are created.
Does it fulfill our mission?
“We strive to promote equitable, inclusive, sustainable, and effective community ownership and governance of key web3 infrastructure through thoughtful and researched decision-making and community engagement.”
Yes. “Inclusive” of important stakeholders.
Ratification: Law of Chains
We voted FOR
This is a needed first step for a shared responsibility and understand of Superchain membership. The one worry is whether or not this “Law” can be enforced properly by the Collective. If not, does it ultimately become meaningless?
Does it fulfill our mission?
“We strive to promote equitable, inclusive, sustainable, and effective community ownership and governance of key web3 infrastructure through thoughtful and researched decision-making and community engagement.”
Yes.
Council Election Info: Season 5
For the following councils, we list the members we approved. In general, we looked for a demonstrated commitment/experience within the optimism collective, and relevant experience within the given council. Relevant experience included: experience building web3 products, investing in web3 products, or prior council work.
Growth Experiments:
- Michael Vander Meiden
- Katie Garcia
- MoneyManDoug
- GFX
- Matt L
Builders:
- Jack Anorak
- Gonna.eth
- Mastermojo
- Kaereste
Milestone and Metrics:
- Mmurthy
- Juanbug_PGov
- Raho
- Chain_L
- v3naru_Curia
Code of Conduct:
- Juankbell
- Teresacd
- Oxytocin
- Axel_T
- Juanbug_PGov
Special Voting Cycle #16c
Security Council Vote #2: Member Ratification
We voted FOR
We believe this is an important first step of transferring control and power over the protocol from the Foundation to the Optimism Collective. Although we did not elect the security council, they come from reputable backgrounds, and we trust in the Foundation’s initial judgment, with the understanding that after this initial term, the Collective will elect our own Security Council Members. We also hope to see some transparency and measurement into the success of these council members in their role.
Does it fulfill our mission?
“We strive to promote equitable, inclusive, sustainable, and effective community ownership and governance of key web3 infrastructure through thoughtful and researched decision-making and community engagement.”
Yes. Important first step towards community ownership.
Upgrade #2: Canyon Upgrade
We voted FOR
It is a non-breaking upgrade coming from a trusted source (OP Labs), with proper assessment of potential impact and risks. Continuous upgrades to the protocol are important.
Does it fulfill our mission?
“We strive to promote equitable, inclusive, sustainable, and effective community ownership and governance of key web3 infrastructure through thoughtful and researched decision-making and community engagement.”
Yes. Given the benefits of the upgrade and its low risk, barring this upgrade would be ineffective to the development of the protocol.