[DRAFT] S02 Committee Proposal: Tooling Governance Committee

Committee category:

Optimism Tooling/Infrastructure Committee

In line with the recent introduction of governance committees, this committee will lend its expertise to review tooling-related proposals, delivering a summary, basic due diligence, a voting recommendation, and justification to Optimism Token House delegates and the community. This will provide relief and full-time expertise to Optimism Token House delegates who would otherwise duplicate some portions of this work.

We follow a quite wide definition of tooling, including but not limited to:

  • Wallets and clients: example proposal
  • Developer tooling
  • Initiatives related to infrastructure (node operation, analytics and other services): example proposal
  • Data management (analytics, explorers, etc.): example proposal
  • dApps and interfaces of interest for Web3 users considered as tooling and that do not fall into DeFi and NFT categories: example proposal
  • Off/cross-chain communication services such as oracles, bridges and liquidity networks (possible cooperation with DeFi committee): example proposal

We are a committee of five delegates, with a particular interest for Web3 tooling and a good understanding of what tools are needed to spur Optimism’s continued ecosystem growth.

Our focus is on growing a key part of an ecosystem’s success; tooling.


This does not preclude Optimism Token House delegates from performing their own analysis or choosing to vote against the recommendation.

This does not preclude other committees from evaluating the same proposal if that proposal falls within multiple committee mandates.

Proposed number of committee members:


Who will be the committee lead?

Kris Kaczor (@krzkaczor )

Kris is one of the co-founders of L2BEAT, analytics and research website focused on Layer-2s. Before that, he was a contributor for MakerDAO and, more specifically, tasked with Maker’s Layer-2 expansion. He is also busy building developer tooling for blockchain developers under the dEth project (TypeChain, dEth Code).

Who will be the committee reviewers?

Joxes | DeFi LATAM (@SEED_LATAM_Joxes)

Joxes is building DeFi LATAM and L2 en Español, both open communities on education and adoption about DeFi/Web3 and Ethereum’s scaling solutions respectively. As representation of DeFi LATAM, their delegation consists of his role as a leader in addition with a dedicated team of contributors who work as a collective in their commitments at Optimism gov.

Lefteris Karapetsas (@lefterisjp)

Lefteris has been in the Ethereum space since 2014, working on the EF’s solidity language and C++ ethereum client. Involved in many projects since then he is now the founder of rotki, the opensource portfolio tracker that protects your privacy.

Lito Coen (@cryptotesters)

Lito leads growth at Hop.exchange, a multichain-bridge connecting Layer-2 solutions to Ethereum. He is also the founder of Cryptotesters, a vibrant community of Web3 enthusiasts with a focus on testing out new products and tools.

Scott (@ceresstation)

Scott is the co-founder of Gitcoin, an internet-native community for building and funding digital public goods. He’s also an active member of a variety of DAOs focused on public goods. Previously, Scott also helped with the Digital Public Goods Alliance and Ethereum Foundation Grants.

Please provide the voting history, voting participation rate and % of votable supply held by each committee member:

Kris Kaczor - 58.97% voting participation, 2.77% share

Joxes | DeFi LATAM - 100% voting participation, 0.60% supply

Lefteris Karapetsas - 100% voting participation, 3.87% supply

Lito Coen - 8% voting participation, 1.44% supply*

Scott - 86% voting participation, 3.25% supply

*Lito utilizes Gnosis Safe, which was not compatible with Snapshot’s UI, resulting in missed votes until a solution was found.

Please disclose any and all conflicts of interest committee members may have:

All of us have hands-on experience building Tooling. This makes us well informed to judge tooling related proposals but can also make us conflicted. Individuals having conflicts of interests with a given proposal will recuse themselves from a committee vote.

Please link to the voting history (with rationale) of each committee member:

Kris Kaczor - Snapshot Profile - Rationale #1, #2, #3

Joxes | DeFi LATAM - Snapshot Profile - Communication Thread.

Lefteris Karapetsas - Snapshot Profile - Rationale #1, #2

Lito Coen - Snapshot Profile

Scott - Snapshot Profile

Please outline the decision making framework the committee plans to use to make recommendations:

Our committee will offer a well-structured report for all those proposals related to and understood as tooling (as defined in the beginning of the proposal). Also we emphasise that such proposals must maintain a clear relationship with the goal for the growth of the Optimism ecosystem according to the description of phase 1.

For it, our commitment is to address the most crucial questions for the understanding of the rest of the delegates and the community about the project involved and the approach of their proposal.

To achieve this, we will detail and weigh the following aspects qualitatively:

  • Added value (good to bad)
  • Impact or expected usage (high to low)
  • Current Status [Development stage/¿Open Source?] (early to ready)
  • Amount requested (high to low)
  • Expenditure plan and distribution (appropriate to inappropriate)
  • Final Committee recommendation

All these points will be described with an explanation of the reasoning and details necessary to justify the weighting. As we know, tooling is a very broad topic so you can expect appropriate modifications or additional points if any proposal deserves particular criteria to be evaluated, identifying each risk point if any.

Additionally, all the relevant information and research about the project, its proposal and any needed context will be properly explained, so each delegate and community can have high guarantees of understanding and decision-making even if it is not their expertise.

Please describe how the committee will operate:

  • We currently form a private telegram group where we coordinate our actions and responsibilities as a team.
  • We are willing to maintain an open communication channel (on OP Discord) with the projects applying to the tooling category (if necessary), in which everyone can be guaranteed transparency in discussions and feedback prior to the issuance of the report with our recommendations.
  • Within 5 business days, we will publish our report and recommendations once the proposal has reached a “Ready” state.
  • We will maintain a Tooling Committee thread on Optimism’s Governance Forum summarising our actions
  • At the end of each cycle or when deemed necessary (depending on the volume of tooling proposals), we will provide additional feedback on our learnings and how to improve moving forward.

Wow nice team here, good to see a gitcoin guy in the tooling committee. my only issue is that one of your member is already in a committee which could lead to issues. one more thing is there should be no communication in private tg chats thats a red flag.

1 Like

How would this be a issue ? and tg is for their initial role and responsibility discussion, at the end they will publish their recommendation on public forum along with tooling thread.

i dont think private discussion is transparent other than that i like this proposal

Private channels only between leader and reviewers is a natural step for planning actions as a team, such as writing and drafting, calls and coordination in general in our research roles. We are only reporting that this channel exists for transparency of how we achieve consensus in our decisions.

1 Like

how they choose to do their team co-ordination has nothing to do with proposal review. Review and how they reach the recommendation needs to public which clearly is.

  • We currently form a private telegram group where we coordinate our actions and responsibilities as a team.

Committees will be expected to operate transparently by communicating in open channels and sharing information in public forums. Even if decision-making processes differ, they should communicate similar information in a consistent place.

this goes against the rules stated. i suggest fixing that and removing yourself from one of the two committees this is my opinion

1 Like

All committees were organized privately. When they are selected they will go to a public channel.

You can search discord for what I am saying. No committee has a public channel yet.

1 Like

Please read again our procedure:

In case it isn’t clear: 1 private channel for internal work (has nothing to do with proposal review or formal process as @OPUser says), 1 public channel for interaction with proposers&sharing information, and a formal public report with recommendations + other feedbacks at the end of cycles/season.

Thanks for your suggestion, currently both committees are satisfied with the situation and it doesn’t represent a problem for the fulfillment of their objectives, but we are open to more feedback in this regard, we’re happy to make the tooling and DeFi option possible according to the gov planning.


This is a very well thrown together committee, glad to see Lefteris and Scott here in tooling. I have no doubt this team will make great recommendations!

1 Like

I voted yes on this committee proposal. Very excited by the expertise and diverse backgrounds of the committee.


Voted Yes.

Happy to support experienced and diverse team. Looking forward to Season 2 and active contribution.

1 Like

Proposal sounds great, and useful. Methodology is sound. Team is also very strong.
Will be voting ‘For’.

Voted yes - This is a stellar team with extensive experience and it will be great to have a committee dedicated to tooling.


Non-transparent curriculum vitae

Voted yes.

Better tooling and infrastructure reduces friction for users. And this is clearly a team with a lot of experience and expertise within their category

Voted ‘yes’ I wish success to committee in their works


me and my team would love to help with smart contract security. We have large set of data and experience in cyber security. wish committee a good luck :crossed_fingers:t2:

Vote: Yes

Strong team with a diverse range of experience. A few of them have been very active in previous forum discussions, and I believe they will significantly aid delegates in making decisions.

1 Like

@krzkaczor any issues with L2beat voting yes on defi committee C given one of your members is on that committee as well? Not sure if that’s very fair.