Optimism Security Council Operating Budget for Seasons 10 and 11

Proposals 📃
1

OPSC Operating Budget for Seasons 10 and 11

Proposed Lead: alisha.eth
Proposed Operating Budget: 5,040,000 OP
Contact Info: DM @Alisha on the forum

Council Charter

Link to existing Security Council Charter on GitHub.
No major changes are proposed to the Security Council Charter for this budget cycle.

Breakdown of Council Operating Budget

This budget funds the Security Council for 12 months, from July 1, 2026 to June 30, 2027, covering both Season 10 and Season 11.

This proposal requests funding for 14 Security Council members: 13 Signers and 1 Lead. Each member receives the same monthly token allocation.

OPSC Member Stipends [unlocked]

  • Number of Members: 14 (13 Signers + 1 Lead)

  • Monthly Token Allocation per Member: 30,000 OP

  • Total Annual Allocation per Member: 360,000 OP

  • Total 12-Month Budget: 5,040,000 OP (14 × 30,000 × 12)

  • Total OP Requested: 5,040,000 OP

Signer Responsibilities — Each OPSC Signer is responsible for secure key management, executing protocol upgrades across OP Chains, participating in monthly calls, onboarding rehearsals, responding to emergencies, and maintaining liveness via the Liveness Module.

Lead Responsibilities — The OPSC Lead coordinates upgrade ceremonies, managing signer liveness, onboarding rehearsals, monthly calls, emergency response coordination, operations and governance participation on behalf of the OPSC, and communication across OP Labs, the Optimism Foundation, and governance participants.

Optional Budgets

Operating Budget: Not requested

Multisig Management: Not requested separately

Hardware devices, signer tooling, and operational costs are expected to be managed within the leftover budget from Season 9, or approved by a future proposal.

How Should Governance Participants Assess Impact?

Governance participants can assess the impact of the OPSC through continued operational reliability, timely execution of upgrade ceremonies, maintenance of signer liveness, and readiness to respond to emergencies.

Performance KPIs

  • Total number of ceremonies signed

  • Signing completion within the required signing window

  • Member uptime and liveness tracked through the Liveness Module

  • Participation in monthly Security Council calls

  • Successful completion of onboarding rehearsals and operational readiness exercises

  • Emergency response readiness

  • Clear communication with OP Labs, the Optimism Foundation, and governance stakeholders when required

Budget Summary

Budget Line Item OP Requested Notes
OPSC Members — 12 Months 5,040,000 OP 14 members × 30,000 OP/month × 12 months
Operating Budget 0 OP Not requested
Multisig Management 0 OP Not requested separately
Total OP Requested 5,040,000 OP 12-month OPSC operating budget

Summary

This proposal requests 5,040,000 OP to fund the Optimism Security Council for a 12-month period.

The budget covers 13 Signers and 1 Lead, with each member receiving a monthly token allocation of 30,000 OP. The request is intended to provide predictable funding for Security Council operations and ensure the Council remains operationally reliable, responsive, and prepared to execute protocol upgrades and emergency actions across the Optimism ecosystem.

3 Likes
2

Voting yes, but is there a point where it makes sense to sell a chunk of the treasury’s OP and just pay the OPSC members in ETH or a stablecoin? Otherwise it it is plausible that this budget component just escalates forever as the token price of OP trends down. 18 months ago the compensation for being a signer was 20,000 OP per season, now it’s 1.5x that per month!

1 Like
3

“Thank you to the proposers and the Security Council for the work you’re doing to secure the Superchain. I’m leaning supportive on this budget, given the critical nature of the role, but I do share some of the concerns raised above around long‑term compensation dynamics.

From a treasury sustainability and governance perspective, it would be helpful to understand whether Optimism has considered alternative payment structures for the OPSC (for example, partially or fully paying in ETH or stablecoins while using OP primarily for alignment and upside), especially in the context of the significant increase from the earlier 20,000 OP per season to the current 30,000 OP per month per member.

Any additional context on how this compensation level was calibrated (time commitment, benchmarks, or comparison with similar security committees in other ecosystems) would make it much easier for delegates and community members to explain why this level of OP outflow is appropriate and sustainable over multiple seasons.” @Alisha @MinimalGravitas

4

The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @kaereste and @Manugotsuka, and is based on their combined research, fact-checking, and discussion.

We voted FOR.

We support funding the Optimism Security Council for Seasons 10 and 11. The Security Council plays an important role in the security and operational reliability of the Optimism ecosystem, including upgrade execution, signer liveness, emergency readiness, and coordination with key stakeholders.

At first glance, the requested amount is much higher than the previous budget in OP terms. However, when compared against prior seasons and adjusted for the lower OP price, the increase appears much more reasonable. In practical terms, the larger token amount seems to be mostly a reflection of OP’s price movement rather than a major increase in dollar-denominated compensation.

We think that context is important when evaluating the request. The Security Council’s responsibilities are ongoing, operationally important, and require members to remain available and responsive. Given that, the proposed budget seems reasonable to us.

5

Subject: Addressing the Benchmark Void: Cross-DAO Security Compensation Matrix

Hello @Alisha, @MconnectDAO, and Delegates,

@MconnectDAO has highlighted a critical friction point: scaling security budgets without standardized, cross-DAO benchmarking. If the Token House is allocating over 5M OP, delegates cannot be expected to vote confidently without a comparative baseline.

The concern regarding the 30,000 OP/month structure versus a stablecoin/token split (for alignment vs. baseline pay) is a systemic Web3 governance issue. Without seeing how Arbitrum, Polygon, or Uniswap structure their Security Council retainers relative to time commitment and TVL, this budget appears in a vacuum.

The Proposal: An Independent Compensation Benchmark Report

To resolve this friction and provide delegates with the exact data required before this moves to a snapshot vote, I can execute an expedited, independent OPSC Compensation Benchmark Analysis.

As an independent Data & Governance Architect, I would deliver a matrix that explicitly maps:

  1. Cross-DAO Salary Baselines: Comparing Optimism’s proposed USD-equivalent retainer against 3-4 other top-tier EVM Security Councils.
  2. Token vs. Stablecoin Splits: Analyzing how other ecosystems balance risk/upside (e.g., base pay in USDC + vesting governance tokens).
  3. TVL-to-Compensation Ratios: A structural comparison of what we are paying per billion dollars of secured Superchain value.

If the Foundation or the delegates feel this external benchmarking is the missing piece needed to confidently justify this OP outflow, I am ready to compile and present this matrix to the forum immediately.

1 Like
6

Thanks for engaging on this, The framing around cross-DAO benchmarking is valid compensation context does help delegates make more informed decisions.

That said, I’d note that ideally this kind of structural benchmarking should be part of the proposal’s supporting documentation from the outset, rather than something that needs to be commissioned externally after the fact. It raises a broader question about what baseline information should accompany budget requests of this scale before they reach delegates.

If such a matrix is compiled and shared openly on the forum, that would certainly be useful not just for this vote, but as a reference point for future Security Council compensation discussions across the Superchain. @JulianCross @Manugotsuka @Alisha @MinimalGravitas