Introducing Governance Committees

yes, KYC will be with OP Foundation as mentioned here.

I also assume it will be done by OF privately but comment from team could clear the assumption.

Will update to indicate KYC will be handled privately by the Foundation!

1 Like

Lovely, thanks for confirming.

I have noticed committee formation proposals have expired i planned on submitting one if thats not possible i am perfectly fine with giving feedback.

I recommend you to post it. No one is covering NFTs for example, better to have one late than none


Any thought about having multiple person on same committee?

thank you i try but not many i know here

I like this framework:

I like the concept of committees, but I get the sense in this and related threads that a lot of the focus is on tactics of the final recommendation.

I’d like to see the committee value proposition center around (i) sector / subsector knowledge, (ii) balanced / objective case for and case against (or pros and cons list), and (iii) shaping the proposal funnel to push proposers to deliver to delegates a well organized, well supported, ready for review and vote proposal.

Receipt of a final recommendation is useful, but even a 3 of 5 committee member majority (assuming that is the definition of majority, one committee member one vote) shouldn’t be blindly followed in my view. That is a recommendation based on a very small number of thinkers.

I am concerned that delegates will blindly follow committee recommendations and not do the work. This might lead to the illusion of a diverse delegate base (i.e., lots of delegates with smaller $OP holdings, that just vote with committees which may be dominated by whale $OP holders).


Hi all, I may have missed some things but I have a few questions/concerns:

  1. Are potential committees going to be voted on by the token house?

  2. Is there an open process for selecting committee members, or is this all based on a proposal submission? My concern is that these committees may be formed by groups who already know each other and therefore won’t have the diversity of thought required for such an outsized influence.

One suggestion would be to first propose a committee, and then propose members individually instead of having everything as a package deal. For example, I think everyone agrees that there should be a DeFi community but if there is only one or two proposals we might think that there are better members for the committee. How would we vote in that instance?

1 Like

I agree with the need to ensure groups are aligned more by expertise than by affinity. For what it’s worth, I can attest to the relative (if not perfect) independence of members on two of the three DeFi committee groups proposed. From what I can gather, the Tooling committee is similarly broad in its composition.

Although I believe with more participation and formalization in governance we could/should explore this format you’re proposed, I’m personally comfortable with the arrangement we currently have as a first step to evaluate later.

The defi group led by Katie Garcia - which has plenty of expertise - has a couple Maker vets, a seasoned defi investor and advisor in Linda Xie, Flipside Crypto, from whom I’ve personally seen some fantastic work, and Stablenode, which has broad governance & defi cred. My sense is that there’s enough diversity in background and interest here as well as deep commitment to best practices to more than ease fears about too tight a perspective.

My impression of the proposed tooling committee is that it’s similarly broad in its members’ range of backgrounds.

Although the proposed group led by sugma.eth has a few SNX ambassadors in Mastermojo and Matt, the members are in fact coming from several angles. Sugma has worked with a wide range of protocols and I don’t believe has any particular alignment within Optimism. As for me, I didn’t really know anybody before being asked by sugma to join this group, and in fact Solarcurve’s protocol, Beethoven, could in some respects be considered a competitor of Velodrome. This, by the way, ought to offset concerns about potential conflicts of interest.

However, one point that’s been raised a few times has been sticking in my head - including experts external to the immediate Optimism community, kind of like board advisors. I think strongly recommending the inclusion of such an outside expert could in one fell swoop limit fears about groupthink as well as conflicts of interest, and it could offer existing committees the ability to address perceived gaps in their expertise.

Could also do some member swaps after inking in the groups to ensure broad coverage (eg not multiple ppl from one protocol), though for this iteration I’d almost prioritize easy working relations over strict independence.


I am in the midst of writing up a proposal for an NFT committee as we speak. Would you you interested?

Hey there @jrocki.eth if you have an open spot on the committee I’d love to participate in this experiment.


Yes! of course! DM me on here or Twitter and we can discuss!

1 Like

completely agree with the idea

1 Like

oops, i missed last part. just read it. it feels a bit weird that incentives remove for season 2 and sorry to hear that

1 Like

hey thanks for the offer im not very into NFTs so its good i missed this, good luck with your committee!


How do we build a system we’re voters are incentivized to do real work and diligence to vote and vote the right, in a decentralized way?
The voters should earn tokens from voting and could earn even more if they spend less OP, but still manage to create growth in the ecosystem.
This is an example I came up with.
Op should have issuance of tokens every month, based on user growth. Set in stone should be that 10% goes to the voters and 90% should be distributed by the voters to build the platform. So if voters, voted on proposals that gives OP more users and growth, the voter will earn more OP tokens.

We want to make sure that the voters really care about how they vote. So we should reward the voter for each vote they make and according to the amount of OP tokens they are voting with.
If voters only distribute half of OP tokens from that month, the rest will be vested for a year, after that year the system should decide what to do with tokens.
If OP network has grown with users and activity the tokens should be released, 90% added to that months natural issuance and 10% should be airdropped to the voters that voted on that months proposals.

Voters are rewarded for participance, each vote they make and according to the amount of OP tokens they are voting with.
If the Network activity decreased over that period all the vested tokens will be burned.
This will make the voter incentivized to vote in what is right for OP because they will gain directly from growing the network as efficiently as possible.

The voter can show their commitment to OP by locking their tokens in stake for 1 year, 6 month or 3 month. By locking you will receive more weight in the vote and earn more of the voter reward. This will reward the most committed participant.

1 Like

*I don’t like the idea, I want everyone to get involved and contribute without direct financial benefit, now the whole ecosystem is incentivized, and I would like to see more people who will get involved and contribute without rewards, at least in governance.
Regarding voting and governance, we have delegates doing the hardest part of the governance process, analysing and working on proposals, now we will have committees, so every voting participant will be able to see a constructive analysis from the committees, and it’s just a matter of voting.
Also each voter votes on which projects will receive grants that will then be allocated to users, i.e. each voter will be able to get rewards by getting involved in the projects they voted for, and the projects that will distribute rewards.
At the moment the circle is complete, impact=profit.


Not keen on the idea.