In the last Community Call there was lively discussion and many participants shared their opinions and concerns on the post “Accelerated Decentralization Proposal For Optimism” and The Foundation response. Share your insights about the topic in this thread.
Questions to answer:
Stage 2 decentralization is an important piece, what does Optimism needs to do in order to hit this milestone?
What do you think about the calls to decentralize at a faster pace?
To hit Stage 2 in decentralization, Optimism needs to break away from having a single, centralized entity running its sequencer. Right now, the sequencer is the key player in ordering transactions and moving things along in the network, which gives a lot of power to one group. Decentralizing it means allowing multiple participants to take on this role, making it harder for anyone to manipulate the system or censor transactions. OP is working on tools like their “Cannon” system, which helps validate transactions more independently, but they still need to open up the sequencer and validation process to more participants to fully decentralize.
The push for Optimism and other rollups to decentralize faster comes from a place of concern. With centralization, there’s always the risk of censorship or even malicious behavior, and in the crypto space, people want trustless systems. However, rushing decentralization can compromise performance and security, which are crucial for keeping the system efficient and safe. Balancing these is tricky—on one hand, faster decentralization increases trust, but on the other, moving too quickly can lead to instability or higher costs. The thoughtful approach would be to decentralize steadily, ensuring that the technology is ready for each step before taking the next one.
Stage 2 decentralization is an important piece, what does Optimism needs to do in order to hit this milestone?
the fraud proof system should be fully decentralized and open to everyone. This means that anyone, not just a set of allowlisted actors, should be able to submit fraud proofs. Users should be provided with at least 30 days to exit the system in case of unwanted upgrades, including upgrades initiated by a DAO. In the final stage of rollup development, the power of the Security Council should be highly limited.
What do you think about the calls to decentralize at a faster pace?
Decentralization is the essence of blockchain. People’s calls for accelerated decentralization are a manifestation of decentralization and an urgent need for blockchain and asset security. These are normal requests and wishes to build a blockchain technology and organization that is as decentralized as possible.
Q1: The fraud proof system should be fully decentralized and open to everyone. This means that anyone, not just a set of allowlisted actors, should be able to submit fraud proofs. Users should be provided with at least 30 days to exit the system in case of unwanted upgrades. In the final stage of rollup development, the power of the Security Council should be highly limited.
Q2: Decentralization offers numerous benefits, including increased security, as there is no single point of failure, making systems more resilient to attacks. Additionally, decentralization empowers individuals by giving them control over their data and reducing reliance on intermediaries. This ultimately fosters innovation and competition, leading to more diverse solutions and services.
In terms of question 1, in order to hit Stage 2 decentralisation (which is defined as ‘No Training Wheels’) Optimism needs to be fully managed by smart contracts with the fraud proof system becoming wholly permissionless. Also the role of the the Security Council role would be limited to addressing soundness errors and protecting users from governance attacks.
In terms of question 2 , this was a really interesting aspect of the most recent community call. As I have mentioned previously I am probably quite conservartive when it comes to the pace of change particularly when it involves governance and Treasury matters. As was discussed on the call it is always good to be challenged (as the new proposal is doing) as that challenge holds up a light of scrutiny to the decision-making process. Speaking personally and freely though I think there is sometimes a risk to going faster just for the sake of it. There is a still a lot of heavy lifting to be done with the Superchain. I think the current pace of decentralisation is about right but perhaps a further walkthrough and review of the roadmap and more efforts to get this communicated to the wider community might go a long way to alleviate some of the original concerns.
Hi @Michael
After going thru "Accelerated Decentralization Proposal for Optimism” by @GFXlabs and replays from @system i have to agree that “parents” does not want let go the “child” to let go…
The road map to Decentralization should be set and start implementing at a faster pace.
What hit me most is how treasury handle. I personally cannot afford to leave my all OP tokens idle just for voting and I’m leveraging large portion in OP defi ecosystem (Velodrome, Hai).
I think that Treasury, OP Bridge and Sequencer money should be also utilized in defi under DAO supervision, some assets could be exchange (in right time) to stable coins so grants can be distributed without lockups.
For me ideal will be if OP token can be staked to vote and participants will receive portion of DAO income… but i understand that quite complicate to organize.
Another interesting topic from community call was how to initiate votes and check community sentiment about hot topics. In my opinion it could be handle by delegates and those who plage voting power could take part of this “Temperature Checks”
Stage 2 decentralization is an important piece, what does Optimism needs to do in order to hit this milestone?
For Optimism to achieve the Stage 2 decentralization, Optimism must be decentralized. It should create the conditions in place to prevent any central authority decisions that can lock it in the rigor. Optimism must focus on distributing control and Governance across its ecosystem, ensuring that the protocol is no longer reliant on a centralized authority. A key part of this process involves decentralizing Governance through the expansion of the Optimism Collective, particularly the Citizen House and Token House, where decisions about protocol upgrades, treasury management, and public goods funding are made by a broader community. Optimism also needs to decentralize its infrastructure, especially its sequencer, which currently manages transaction ordering. Transitioning to a decentralized network of sequencers will help distribute power and increase transparency. The development of the OP Stack and Superchain requires decentralized coordination across multiple chains, enhancing interoperability while maintaining security. Additionally, the Retroactive Public Goods Funding model will need to scale to empower more participants to fund ecosystem growth. By focusing on decentralizing governance, infrastructure, and funding, Optimism will move closer to a sustainable, community-driven ecosystem, achieving the milestone of Stage 2 decentralization.
What do you think about the calls to decentralize at a faster pace?
Rushing into decentralization without careful planning can pose significant risks. For Optimism, it’s crucial to decentralize governance structures and critical infrastructure like the sequencer in a manner that ensures security and operational efficiency. Moving too hastily without establishing robust frameworks for decentralized decision-making, technical coordination, and incentivization could result in governance inefficiencies or even security vulnerabilities. A balanced approach is essential, ensuring that decentralization progresses steadily but cautiously, with necessary safeguards in place. Optimism’s deliberate steps toward decentralizing governance and infrastructure show an understanding of the need for sustainable, long-term decentralization rather than simply aiming for speed.
