Hey there! Thanks for giving it a watch, I appreciate that, I know this proposal has a lot of different parts in action.
Did you have a chance to play around with the dashboard we built in the TEC? You might not understand everything but it’s the closest example of the product we want to build.
Great questions you brought up and I’ll try my best to address them. I also have seen the comments in your delegation communication thread and will try to go over some points as well that you brought up there.
Reference:
To your first point, you are totally right in that the gas fees calculation itself is not a algorithm that offers a lot of room for complexity. It’s basically two variables IIRC the dynamic fee and the fixed fee which are calculated along with the gas price and the gas used to arrive at the final fee on transactions.
Inside of the module we’ll provide a friendlier interface than spreadsheets to play with variables and see the simulation data for making transactions on Optimism and other L2s as a comparison.
However, this is not really the main problem we’re trying to solve. The gas controls module would be the first of hopefully many modules that can be standalone or complement each other.
We’re just getting started…
Gas controls for example would be followed by a module of how to use the gas fees collected to buy OP, which could be followed by a module that dictates how OP collected is then distributed. From there you have a clearer picture of a robust economy that you can propose as an ensemble. That’s the true beauty of economic co-design, but for the limitations of S4 (time & budget) we settled on a smaller scope that could be built upon with subsequent funding and community interest. Gas controls is the simplest module for our vision, and a logical starting point.
The problem that we’re trying to tackle is that there is no good Governance process for a community to decide what any of these settings should be. You can have 40-50 people making endless forks of spreadsheets and arguing their points in forum posts but that can be a tedious and fruitless process.
What this proposal establishes is a clear and engaging process of bringing an entire community together to express their creativity and ideas in a specific format and work through it all until you arrive at the best configuration(s) generated by your community. This is contained specifically in the portions relating to the Module Configuration Archives the custom Snapshot voting UI, and also the education content, all of which we had to cut scope on and want to improve in subsequent proposals.
To your last point about the sequencer I will quote the comment Griff made to Bobby:
The gas controls can be changed, those two variables I mentioned can be changed. But by whom? It appears only by the core devs for now. However, how might those core devs approach changing them? How would they even assess if the community wants to change them, and to what? The economic co-design dashboard provides a way for all of that to happen.
I’ll admit the gas controls are not something I imagine will be changed frequently, nor should they be, but the framework with gas controls as just one module among many I see as immense value for the OP stack, Optimism and really any network that wants to holistically manage it’s configuration.
I hope this resolves some of your concerns @jackanorak and I’ll be happy to address any more you might have. Thank you for your critical eye and raising some valid concerns!