I am one of the Synthetix Ambassadors, and I am an Optimism delegate [Delegate Commitments - #65 by mastermojo ] with sufficient voting power, and I believe this proposal is ready to move to a vote!
As mentioned above I approved this proposal so I am also voting for it
1 Like
Hi @maurelian! I think this link is no longer working. Can you please update it?
Voting against
I too would like us to improve our level of decentralization but I feel the 10/13 opens us up to more risk. For the other upgrades with-in this proposal I would have voted for had they been individually proposed.
1 Like
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @kaereste and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We are voting in favor of the proposal as the outlined changes are a step towards getting Optimism to ‘Stage 1’, as defined by our (L2BEAT’s) Stages Framework.
1 Like
We are pleased to hear about assigning the Guardian role from the Foundation to Guardian Safe. This is crucial for decentralization and achieving a stage 1 rollup. Increasing the signing threshold during the early periods is also a good move for enhancing security. We appreciate the LivenessModule and LivenessGuard smart contracts extension. However, we still find 14 weeks to be a long term for exit. Overall, we support this proposal.
1 Like
The SEED Latam delegation, as we have communicated here, with @Joxes being an Optimism delegate, we VOTE FOR this proposal.
We believe it is important to continue moving towards the decentralization of the Guardian, as we see the role as a single point of failure. However, we consider beneficial increasing the Security Council Safe’s signing threshold from 4 to 10 out of 13, as this reduces the risk of having a single point of failure.