Code of Conduct Council Communication Thread

Hello Optimists!

Following the various initiatives to keep an open governance, we aim to do the same.

There are various items in this post we have been working on, and exploring, and we believe the best way for us to proceed, is by opening up the conversation to the Collective, please share any ideas or points you might believe will be important in shaping the role of the CoCC.

In this thread, we are sharing and requesting feedback on the following:

1. Amendment to our Internal Procedures
2. Ideations on reputational attestations for OP citizens
3. Whitehat Safe Harbor Agreement
4. Proposal to Alter Token House Code of Conduct Council Charter for following Seasons

1. Amendment to our Internal Procedures

Procedure Following the Receipt of a Report

  1. Notification Phase: Upon receipt of a report, the Code of Conduct Council (CoCC) will, within three (3) days, notify the involved parties of the report’s existence to ensure transparency and fairness in the process.

  2. Investigative Phase: The CoCC will engage with the involved parties confidentially through the Council’s official account to gather comprehensive information pertinent to each case. This step is crucial for an informed decision-making process. The individuals or groups reported will be informed about the specifics of the report and will have until the Evaluation and Voting Period begins to submit any additional evidence or information they deem relevant for the assessment of the report.

  3. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR): Should the CoCC ascertain that the report is amenable to ADR methods and the involved parties consent to this approach, the CoCC will facilitate this process. This stage will suspend any further evaluation or decision-making by the CoCC, and a designated lead from the CoCC will oversee the ADR process.

  4. Evaluation and Voting Period: The Evaluation and Voting Period begins two working days before the Decision period following the collection of all pertinent information, CoCC members will independently review the details of the open reports. "Each member will contribute to a shared Report Evaluation Document and cast an anonymous vote. Decisions within the CoCC will be reached by a simple majority. The Lead of the CoCC, while not a voting member, shall possess the authority to make decisive calls in the event of a deadlock among the Council members. The CoCC’s voting will focus on two key aspects: the occurrence of a violation and the severity of the said violation.

  5. Decision Period: Two (2) working days before the conclusion of the Review Period, the CoCC will finalize the evaluation of all reports received during the said period. The findings will be presented as an “Optimistic Vote” to the Token House, allowing for a potential veto of any enforcement actions proposed by the CoCC. A comprehensive document detailing the resolution of each report, along with relevant non-confidential information, will be published for the involved parties and the broader community, maintaining the confidentiality of specific details as required.

As per the Token House Code of Conduct Council Charter where a report cannot be addressed within the current Review Period due to it being submitted less than 3 days before the end of the Review Period, the CoCC will ensure its resolution before the conclusion of the subsequent Review Period.

In the event of a Voting Conflict: Council members are required to disclose any conflicts of interest immediately and recuse themselves from the decision-making process regarding the report in question. The remaining Council members will proceed with the vote, with a simple majority constituting a quorum.

Addressing Dissatisfaction with Council Decisions: Parties dissatisfied with the CoCC’s decision may request a one-time reconsideration of the report through a designated form. Additionally, if new evidence emerges that was not previously reviewed by the CoCC, a new report may be filed.

Subsequent Violations: Should the reported parties persist in their problematic behavior following a decision and the imposition of an enforcement action, it is imperative to report this continued misconduct to the CoCC through a new report.

Follow-up: After the decisions of the CoCC are communicated and legitimated by community vote, there will be a watch phase of 2 review periods for the implementation actions proposed.

Documentation and Accountability: All claims, reports, and enforcement decisions must be thoroughly documented, with non-confidential information and public resolutions being communicated through the community forum.

Council Members’ Obligations: Council members are expected to participate in over 70% of the votes. The Lead is responsible for coordinating the review process, convening regular Council meetings (at least once per Voting Cycle), and acting as a tiebreaker in the event of a deadlock on administrative or operational matters.

A retrospective analysis will be conducted at the end of each Season to ensure all documentation is current for incoming Council members.

Maintaining CoCC Transparency: Summaries of accomplished items during the meetings from Council meetings will be accessible to the community through the forum. At the end of each Review Period, the CoCC will publish a summary of enforcement decisions made during the Voting Cycle. These decisions are subject to optimistic approval, meaning they are deemed approved unless explicitly vetoed by the Token House. Should any enforcement action garner more than 12% of “no” votes from the votable supply, it will be escalated to a full Token House vote in the subsequent Voting Cycle, and no enforcement action will be taken in the interim.

Modifications to Internal Procedures: Any amendments to these internal procedures require approval by a majority plus one of the CoCC members. No more than one modification may be implemented per Season, and all amendments will be publicly disclosed through the forum.

We want to state the Importance of Malleable Internal Operating Procedures in Experimental Governance Structures

2. Ideations on reputational attestations for OP citizens

The CoCC has explored issuing reputational and mutual acknowledgment attestations for OP token holders and citizens. We believe the collective affirmation of common truths (like the Code of Conduct) is a means by which we maintain a unified ideology and understanding. There are multiple facets to reputation, and the CoCC thinks it could be prudent and possible to highlight positive actions that reinforce the CoC in the spirit of idealism versus issuing a negative reputation for violations of the CoC. We are still just exploring these sorts of ideas and welcome any feedback or further suggestions from the Collective.

3. Whitehat Safe Harbor Agreement

The Council has been researching certain initiatives that might interest the collective, one of them being the Whitehat Safe Harbor Agreement which is “ a framework in which protocols can offer legal protection to whitehats who aid in the recovery of assets during an active exploit”, the procedure to adopt it, is though a community review and approval, this might be of special interest to the Security Council, and we are looking to open up the conversation.

Relevant Links:

4. TEMP CHECK: Proposal to Alter Token House Code of Conduct Council Charter for following Seasons

Over the first half of Season 5, within the inaugural Token House Code of Conduct Council, it has become apparent to the CoCC membership group that the timelines and deadlines to accept, evaluate, and respond to Reports, as directed by the Token House approved Charter, has been severely limiting in achieving optimal outcomes for the Optimism Collective.

The current Charter dictates that all Reports must be processed and concluded within a single Voting Cycle, i.e. the maximum time we have to process a Report is three weeks, and as for the minimum, the charter even dictates that we must fully process a Report even if it’s submitted in as little as four (4) days before the end of Review Period deadline.

Considering the detailed nature of some reports, the length and complexity of some disputes, and the CoCC’s obligations to affected parties and the wider Optimism community, having a window spanning from four (4) days to three (3) weeks to accept, review, and process these cases isn’t functional. It may be leading to poor overall outcomes from the CoCC structure. The Charter’s tight deadlines put unrealistic expectations on the CoCC membership and even lead to conflict among CoCC members when it comes to managing these timeframes. All CoCC members are well-intentioned and optimistic, and all still believe in the CoCC as the best alternative to, the centralization of the Foundation administering the Code of Conduct on one hand, and the full Token House administering the Code of Conduct on the other. However, the CoCC’s effectiveness has been hampered by the unforeseen difficulty created by the Charter’s timeframes.

Thus, we’d like to temp-check the following Proposal:

The current charter is amended from:

“Process all Code of Conduct Violation reports, excluding Grant Misusage reports which will still go to a full Token House vote, by the end of the nearest review period. If the end of the nearest review period is less than 3 days away, the report may be processed by the end of the next nearest review period.”

And changed to:

“Process all Code of Conduct Violation reports, excluding Grant Misusage reports which will still go to a full Token House vote, by the end of the nearest Season, and process any Code of Conduct Violation reports excluding Grant Misusage Reports, earlier if possible and practical. If the end of the nearest Season is less than 3 days away, the report may be processed by the end of the next nearest Season.”

The CoCC encourages your feedback on this draft Proposal. Please share your thoughts, comments, and feedback, so as a collective, we can find the next, best iteration of the CoCC to experiment with.

Have a great week,


Hi everyone,

This is Axel and I’m a member of the current season’s CoCC. I’m just posting now to prompt and encourage some feedback and ideally hear some points of view from others in the community. Please note: I’m posting here with my personal account, and thus I’m only posting on behalf of myself, and do not wish to imply the full endorsement from the CoCC for my own personal opinions described in this post.

In short:
In regards to doing a TEMP CHECK on any Proposal to Alter Token House Code of Conduct Council Charter for following Seasons, the CoCC has had some feedback from a platform outside of this Discourse Forum. The constructive criticism was that extending the deadline to resolve cases to a full season was probably too long, and may lead to reduced accountability for the CoCC if they didn’t need to wrap things up for several months and/or only needed to wrap things up once per season.

Personally, I believe this criticism is valid, but some sort of time expansion for handling cases would still required (just my opinion). I.e. A minimum of fours days (one voting cycle) to handle reports may be too short, but a maximum of five months (one season) to handle reports may also be too long.

So what does anyone else think?

How long do you think any future CoCC should have to receive, evaluate, decide and publish decisions for each report?

One voting cycle (i.e. keep as is)?
Two voting cycles (i.e. current and following)?
Three (i.e. current and next two following voting cycles)?
More (e.g. a full season or half season might be okay)?

If you want to chime in, then please do. There are no wrong answers. We are just trying to gauge community sentiment and encourage collective decision making.

Thanks for your time, cheers!

1 Like

Summary of Actions for Voting Cycle 20

We currently have no decisions to be presented for review, and we encourage the collective to participate with their opinions on the points mentioned in this thread..

Members of the CoCC


Summary of Actions for Voting Cycle 21

Hello Optimists!
We currently have no decisions to be presented for review.

Members of the CoCC

1 Like

Hello Optimists!

We want to share recent updates on our first approach to solving a Report via Alternative Dispute Resolution Methods, we believe it brings value to the community to share our experience and the questions made looking for ADR:

What would be your ideal outcome?
What would be the worst possible outcome for you?
What is your proposed solution?
What would be your victory speech?
How could trust be rebuilt, if possible?
Do you think the other party can redeem in some way?
What do you think are the needs of the other party?
What are your needs in this situation?
Do you recognize any wrongdoing on your behalf?
Has the punishment been severe enough?
What would be the gains of a more severe punishment?
How can the Optimism ecosystem benefit the most from this situation?
How could the individual parties learn/benefit from this situation?
What will you do to reach the best alternative in this case?
Would you agree to sign an attestation on the blockchain on the outcome of this process?

In the case it was tried to be implemented in particular, the desired outcomes were out of the Scope of the CoCC, so weren´t able to continue with it. We do encourage you to view ADR methods as an alternative to any disputes that may arise, in your personal and professional encounters, it’s important to mention that this sets a precedent for any upcoming reports on the same parties.




Hello Optimists!

We want to update the community on our Internal Procedures, please find them linked here.

We have no updates regarding Reports to communicate on, as always, it’s a pleasure to work towards a better Collective.

See you,


Retrospective - Season 5

First of all, thank you for allowing the members of this Council for Season 5 to be part of the Collective. We have learned a lot and worked in favor of the participants of the Collective. We have conducted this Retrospective internally and want to share some important points with all of you.

Please note that in some responses, there are various conclusions. We believe that seeing the different perspectives of the members is more important than reaching a consensus when submitting a Retrospective.

1. What is your assessment of any benchmark milestones and/or impact KPIs that were set in your Budget Proposal or Charter at the start of the Season? Have you made progress towards, or achieved, these milestones or KPIs?

  • We believe we have achieved progress based on our mandate, there has been less governance overhead in the management of conflicts by the Foundation, and less voting around the Code of Conduct sanctions, contributing to these Goals, by replacing the Foundation in the processing of reported Code of Conduct Violations and eliminating enforcement responsibilities for Token House delegates by entrusting the Code of Conduct Council to process disputes. To create accountability for the Code of Conduct Council, the Token House may veto enforcement actions at any time

  • Generally, the introduction of Optimistic Enforcement of actions alone has already led to fewer votes needed from the Token House on these matters, we think we were effective at these goals.

  • While the CoCC wasn’t perfect, we successfully achieved these goals by soaking up governance overhead that would have otherwise fallen on the token. Our small group size (as opposed to the large Token House) meant we could dedicate more time and attention to each case than the Token House could, which would have ideally led to more optimal outcomes for the cases. Finally, the fact the CoCC Members were drawn from rank-and-file members of the Optimism Community, increased the decentralization of Optimism Governance and minimized the need of the Foundation to remain in control.

2. Impact assessment - how well did your team’s outputs support the Intent they were authorized under?

  • All reports were discussed, with different perspectives being given for each case from members. The biggest output I am impressed with the Council has been the communications on the thread, with many members being able to handle publicly very sensitive threads.

  • We managed cases that were a load on the Foundation and the community, taking off weight to specific areas and taking care of the public image of the collective. Managing conflict is one of those areas whose impact is invisible, and trying to measure it is paradoxical. It’s hard to reach a consensus in dicotomic situations and there will be a certain amount of descent to decisions we make. If we want to have conflict, to prove our capacity to manage it, we are incentivizing the first unwanted premise. If there are a few conflicts, we may think the group is not needed. It’s good that the conflict management offices are prepared for any emergency, and also that there are moments without conflict that prevention.

  • I think it’s less important to discuss the team’s outputs, and more important to focus on the indirect benefit to the Optimism Collective that the CoCC provided. Our inner workings and outputs ultimately minimized governance overhead for the Token House, increased decentralization of the Collective, and led to better outcomes among disputes. Our group activities and communication across Optimism’s online platform and community events appeared to reduce the frequency of disputes, reduce incivility on the online platforms, and provide a support mechanism to community members who felt they had been wronged or generally unsafe in the community; i.e. We were always there if people needed us, and it appeared as if many in the community knew this.

3. What changes would you make to the Internal Operating Procedures (IOP’s)?

  • Incentivizing people in the community to be closer to the COCC. We should be able to know about conflicts when they are small. If we are not seen close to the community, it will be harder to access cases and we’ll only perceive them when they are big.

  • I think an important goal is to keep the IOPs simple, clear, and easy to understand and adhere to. With this as a goal, I am pleased that the CoCC did indeed dedicate significant time and energy to creating and/or refining the IOPs, while always seeking feedback from the community and the Foundation.

4. Suggested adjustments to the Charter.

  • Open the forms to not only strong Code of Conduct violations but also tearings of the social fabric, allowing feedback loops and notification of issues when they are small as fast as possible. Leading to not only Yes or No decisions, but to transforming polarities into informed dialogue spaces.

  • A change that I’ve previously discussed, is that Reports should be received, processed, and reported on with 2 consecutive Voting Cycles, and not only one (i.e. the same) Voting Cycle. I believe this change would improve decision-making by the CoCC reduce pressures on CoCC Members and minimize conflicts among CoCC Members.

  • Giving more space for innovation within the CoCC to innovations, for example, for this initial Season we started exploring within the Council the option to use Attestations within our decisions and roles, this was something that wasn´t part of the Charter, but I believe adding within the Charter a research or investigative area that includes an open mandate to innovate as Council would be seen by the members as an open playground.

5. What improvements to the team’s mandate would you suggest for next Season? If you don’t believe the team’s operations should continue next Season, please explain why here.

  • I feel that ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) and report voting could be parallelized. The Council’s role in voting on behalf of the Token House cannot be assumed by any other entity, however, with additional resources we could expand and potentially onboard a more comprehensive method for resolutions beyond the council members themselves.

  • I think we should continue next season, and be given support to pivot cases to facilitation of ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution). I think this experiment was fun and beneficial to the community and the participants of the COCC (Code of Conduct Council). In my opinion, for next season we can continue polishing and iterating based on what was built to support the community and the foundation in the better identification and processing of code of conduct violations and overall management of conflicts in the Optimism ecosystem.

  • I think there can be two parallel streams to handle Reports. While the CoCC should remain the first ‘port-of-call’ or ‘first responder’ for all Reports, the CoCC should have the option to off-ramp selected cases to an external ADR body or process. The external ADR provider could provide increased expertise and dedicated time and staff for the longer term (supported or created by adequate funding) that could better handle these embedded, but recoverable disputes, in comparison to the direct CoCC. Cases that are not off-ramped to ADR would remain the responsibility of the CoCC, and the CoCC could increase the specialization, efficiency, and effectiveness in investigating, processing, adjudicating, and reporting on cases that lean more to obvious abuse, infractions, or breaches, as opposed to the human, personality or political disputes that are more likely breakdowns in the social fabric of the community but can still be recovered (i.e. these cases are handled by the ADR body).

  • The mandate of the CoCC is of high importance to the Collective because due process is required when members of the Token House are subject to any kind of sanction, especially when this sanction involves not only deleting a post but also imposing higher sanctions such as limiting their ability to participate in the Forum.

Potentially, this could be the last post from the members who are part of this initial experiment. We have forged bonds that we know will always be there among us. We thank you immensely once again for this opportunity.

Regards :heart_decoration:,
@gene @Axel_T @Juanbug_PGov @Oxytocin @juankbell @teresacd


Are you guys planning on bringing any final resolution to the NFTEarth matter?

They are still trying to extract value, even after shuttering the project on 24h vote that included just a single voter. Being able to point to this committees conclusions would help prevent further damage.


We have responded about this Report in an email dated Wed, Apr 17, please let us know if it was correctly received.

It was not received. I just sent a follow up via email.

Hello, it was just resent, it could be in the spam folder.

1 Like