Council Dissolution Proposal: Dissolve the Milestones and Metrics Council

Proposals 📃
1

As outlined in the Operating Manual, a persistent Council is expected to continue into the next Season unless a Dissolution proposal is approved. As outlined in Guide to Season 9, the Foundation is proposing the dissolution of the Milestones and Metrics Council.

This proposal is not related to the dedication, intentions, or contributions of Council members. We thank all former and current Milestones and Metrics Council members for their contributions to the Collective over the years, they’ve played a very valuable role in our experimentation with decentralized accountability.

Name of Council or Board: Milestones and Metrics Council

Current Charter: link

Reason for Dissolution Proposal:
The Milestones and Metrics Council was established under the Council and Board Framework to evaluate the completion of milestones and manage the delivery of grants made by the Grants Council. After multiple seasons of operation, the Foundation has assessed that the current set of Councils creates coordination friction without proportional benefit to grantees or the broader ecosystem.

Over the past three years, Optimism has experimented with ways to organize, fund, and align our efforts to build and grow the Superchain. We’ve run experiments evaluating the following:

  • Community-led capital allocation aimed at fueling user growth, supporting developer adoption, and winning customers.

  • Community contributions via Mission Requests and a public core development process.

  • Public goods funding aimed at discovering how Optimism might accurately fund positive impact to support a growing ecosystem.

What we’ve learned is that attempting to coordinate a disparate set of teams and organizations results in loss of shared context and less efficient operating structures, and also does not meaningfully increase decentralization where it matters. The Milestones and Metrics Council in particular adds a layer of process that slows disbursements without meaningfully improving accountability outcomes.

As a result, the Foundation has proposed the dissolution of the Grants Council (see proposal here). Without any community-led grant programs, the Charter of the Milestone and Metrics Council no longer serves any purpose.

Over time, the Optimism Collective has operated with an increasingly complex Council and Board structure that was designed to distribute governance responsibilities during an earlier phase of the Collective’s development. As the Collective matures, the Foundation is proposing a series of changes to reduce structural overhead, streamline decision-making, and improve the speed and quality of grants deployment. Dissolving any non-mission critical Councils, such as the Milestone and Metrics Council, is a necessary step toward that streamlined vision.

Any milestones remaining for grants previously made by the Grants Council will be managed via a third-party contractor agreement with the Foundation to ensure continuity while community-led grant programs roll-off. As in a public company, the primary role of governance becomes holding the Foundation accountable in monitoring milestone-based grants. Unlike the original vision of DAOs, the role of governance will not be to monitor grants directly but rather to ensure those entrusted with this responsibility (the Foundation) perform well.

We thank all members of the Milestones and Metrics Council, from Season 5-9 for your contributions in this ongoing experiment. You’ve played an important role in the evolution of the Collective’s understanding of accountable capital allocation.

Action Required

Token House delegates are asked to vote For or Against the formal dissolution of the Milestones and Metrics Council.The Citizens’ House will not vote as it has been temporarily paused.

A “For” vote approves dissolution of the Milestones and Metrics Council, effective immediately. Any remaining milestones will be monitored by the Foundation via a third-party contractor agreement. In the case of an “Against” vote, a prospective Lead would need to propose a budget in the next voting cycle and recruit candidates to nominate themselves to be members. The Foundation will not provide operational support or facilitate coordination with core teams.

Proposals by the Foundation don’t require delegate approvals. If this proposal is approved, it will supersede any documentation referencing the Council and the Council will be dissolved effective immediately. The Foundation will work with the Council to complete offboarding, as needed.

3 Likes
Council Dissolution Proposal: Dissolve the Grants Council
6

The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @kaereste and @Manugotsuka, and is based on their combined research, fact-checking, and discussion.

We voted ABSTAIN

We decided to abstain on this proposal because we are uncomfortable with actively voting to dismantle the Collective’s oversight structures. While we understand the operational logic that dissolving the Grants Council makes a separate Milestones and Metrics Council less practical, we cannot bring ourselves to endorse the systematic wind down of community accountability.

At the same time, voting against this proposal would not be pragmatic. Keeping a watchdog committee active when the very program it was designed to monitor is being phased out would only create a legacy structure with no clear purpose. We know a community council cannot function without the active support and cooperation of the Foundation, so forcing its continuation is not the answer.