Excellent to see the progress here, and we appreciate the transparency from the Foundation’s side. As mentioned in convos with other Optimism contributors, we support the notion of focusing not only on who can propose certain proposals but also what type of proposal is being proposed and setting delineations there. Proposal type is key here, and it is great to see the Foundation moving in this direction.
Regarding the open questions:
On 1: “We propose that, to start, since the Optimism Foundation will retain a veto right over Gov Fund allocations that the Optimism Foundation can just hold this role to start.” - We agree with this path.
On 2: We think the initial top-100 delegate approval suggestions in the second graphic above in the proposal are a bit low, but we support the direction. 5 top-100 delegate approvals for small gov fund allocations and 15 top-100 delegate approvals for large gov fund allocations would be more secure to start with and still would not be too much lift. We think our research around governance attack risk in the Optimism Collective supports this: Accelerated Decentralization Proposal For Optimism - #31 by AnthiasLabs
We additionally think the “small” and “large” allocation numbers should be adjusted slightly as they currently are aggressive. We would put small at <2% and large at 2%<=X<=5%. Any initiative looking to spend more than 5% of the treasury should require multiple stagged proposals with proven milestones / accomplishments demonstrated for the Collective given that level of spend.
On 3: No edits within 24 hours before the voting period makes sense here. This also fits with the suggestion of no new proposals within 24 hours before the voting period. Keep processes streamlined.