Delegate Code of Conduct

Delegate Code of Conduct

Scope: This code of conduct applies to active delegates of the OP Token House. This code of conduct applies within all community spaces and when an individual is representing the community in public, either online or offline.

The Rules of Engagement specifically pertaining to the Forum can be found here.

This Code of Conduct will go into effect at the start of Special Voting Cycle #9a.


  • There will be no tolerance for discrimination against any person based on geographical, ethnic, sexual, religious, or other identifying features.
  • Delegates should be respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences and show empathy towards community members.
  • Pertinent delegate communications should be transparent and public. Communication in public is favored over DMs/private communication, whenever possible.

Extreme Civility

  • Delegates should provide constructive feedback supported by high quality and well researched arguments. Delegates must not personally attack the opinions or personal merits of proposal authors or any other party engaging in governance activity. Delegates must not make unsubstantiated claims to advocate for or against any proposal or proposal author.

  • Delegates must always act in a professional manner. The following behaviors are unacceptable and will not be tolerated:

    • Public or private harassment
    • The use of sexualized language or imagery and unwelcome sexual attention or advances
    • Intentionally publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or electronic address, without explicit permission
  • Delegates should actively discourage others breaking this code of conduct. Delegates should report serious or repeat offenses, as outlined below.

  • Delegates must abide by the Rules of Engagement when communicating on the Forum.

Good Faith and Best Interest

  • Delegates must act with honesty, integrity, and transparency, at all times.
  • Delegates should operate in a way and vote in accordance with what they believe is in the best interests of the Optimism Collective.

Due Care and Attention

  • Delegates should maintain a working knowledge of developments at Optimism and in the wider cryptocurrency space.
  • Delegates should make a professional and unbiased review of each proposal prior to voting. Delegates that are unable to review proposals should abstain from voting.
  • Delegates are encouraged to maximize their voting participation rate, to the best of their ability.
  • Delegates are encouraged to shape the development of Optimism’s governance structure by providing feedback during Reflection Periods.


  • Delegates must uphold all delegate commitments.

  • [Contingent on Grants Council approval: Delegates that serve on the Grants Council must uphold the responsibilities outlined in the approved Grants Council proposal.]

No Self-Dealing

  • Delegates must avoid conflicts of interest where possible and mitigate their impact when not possible. We recommend over-communicating and disclosing potential conflicts of interest even when they do not warrant abstaining from a vote.

    • Any actual or reasonably anticipated conflicts of interest must be disclosed in writing and prominently displayed ahead of any voting (ie. when submitting delegate commitments, when running for an elected position, when making public recommendations, etc.).
    • Any offer for external compensation related to delegation or the Optimism Protocol must be promptly disclosed.
    • Delegates are prohibited from approving and voting on their own proposals.
  • [Contingent on Protocol Delegation Program approval: Additionally, protocols participating in the Protocol Delegation Program must:

    • Abstain from using voting power delegated via the Protocol Delegation Program on any proposals that involve a direct competitor
    • Abstain from providing voting recommendations to the general public, separate from any representative’s participation on the Grants Council]

Delegate Off-boarding


All delegates are expected to abide by this code of conduct. Any delegate that is found to be in breach of this code of conduct, will be subject to the below enforcement procedures.

  • Individuals who wish to report a breach should do so using this reporting form.
  • The Foundation will review the submissions. The identity of a submission author will not be publicly disclosed by the Foundation without the author’s consent.
  • Submission authors and/or the delegates in question may be contacted by the Foundation for additional information, if necessary.


There are a variety of possible enforcement actions, depending on the severity of the offense:

Enforcement Type Type of Violation Consequence Enforcement Action
Warning First instance of inappropriate language or other behavior deemed unprofessional or unwelcome in the community, which is not already flagged by moderators on Discord or Discourse. A private, written warning from the Foundation, providing clarity around the nature of the violation and an explanation of why the behavior was inappropriate. A public apology may also be requested. In Season 3, the Foundation will process and issue reported warnings.
Temporary Suspension A serious violation of community standards, including sustained inappropriate behavior. A temporary ban, lasting the length of 1 month, from Discord and Discourse. No public or private interaction with the community members involved, including unsolicited interaction with those enforcing the Delegate Code of Conduct. Violating these terms may lead to off-boarding. In Season 3, the Foundation will process and issue temporary suspensions.
Off-boarding Repeated violation of community standards, including sustained inappropriate behavior, or severe violation, including discrimination, harassment, intentional doxxing, dishonesty, or undisclosed self-dealing. A permanent ban from Discord and Discourse and any sort of interaction within the community. Voters may also be alerted and asked to re-delegate. Protocols receiving delegation via the Protocol Delegate Program will lose the corresponding delegation. Token House will vote to offboard delegates that are reported to have committed severe violations, using the Delegate Off-boarding proposal type to be outlined in the operating manual.



This was much needed, last season was a rough road and happy to see foundation taking action in right direction.


Explicitly worded in simple and clear English :wink:.

1 Like

This looks like natural behavior thank you for taking the time to write it!

1 Like

The code of conduct makes sense and is standard in most places.

Regarding the off-boarding though I am concerned by the lack of any transparency and by the centralization. How do you as a foundation offboard someone who has had tokens delegated to them by the community?

The only one who can undelegate from the delegate is the users who delegated the tokens themselves. Giving the power to blacklist a delegate to the foundation is a terrible point of centralization.

From what I understand it would not be technically possible but if the foundation decides a delegate is undesirable they can start this process and ask voters to undelegate. Which is a completely centralized process.

I would like to see a more community-based appeals process where the foundation is not the central point of arbitration.

Thanks for the comments @lefterisjp. This could be more clearly written, but the Foundation will only process warnings and temporary suspensions (of one month). The Foundation will not have the ability to off-board a delegate. Off-boarding must go through a full Token House vote before any of the consequences are enforced, to prevent the scenarios you described. For example, voters would only be asked to un-delegate after the Token House had approved a Delegate Off-boarding proposal. Does that address your concerns?


This makes sense and looks good.

Excellent to see this. Will formal prohibitions on self dealing also apply to other empowered stakeholders in the community, like Labs, Foundation, and third-party service providers? If so, what would be the process to censure or off board offenders?

Is there a due process that will be made public for how this will work? Who within the Foundation would be the individuals charged with evaluating reported offenses, and how will they be asked to do that evaluation?

It’s very exciting to see a code of conduct formed.

Yes this sounds better, thank you for taking the time to clarify.

That said, imo it still brings a centralization vector where none should exist or was even needed.

Who in the foundation will be processing such requests? How do you ensure that requests are genuine? How would you fight spam? I can easily see this being a spam vector.

Thanks for the feedback everyone! We hear you on the need to update our thinking on the enforcement mechanism and will suggest related changes shortly.

1 Like

Great to have an explicit & detailed post to reference, as well as a path for accountability.