Thanks for your comments. I think the security committee should be the topmost priority as it’s both the lowest hanging fruit and also the weakest link. Of course, we all want to see fully permissioned fault proofs, but I’m specifically looking at a “minimum viable decentralization” in this particular post at which point it is reasonable to start unthrottling incentives being the very specific context.
The reasoning is fairly simple: unlike contract upgradability, it’s an honest-minority role that can also be overriden by the governance and/or security council itself, who can act as de-facto adjudicators within the 7 days in the absence of a reliable dispute mechanism. So, even if the proofs fail, the chain can continue with at least an honest majority assumption. Crucially, there’s no direct regulatory risk or single point of failure, as was my primary concern. Of course, this is hardly an acceptable solution in the broader view, but this is where I’d be willing to compromise and let the incentives start rolling out unthrottled looking, within the specific context of this topic.
I think this is a great proposal.
I felt the votings were odd, some good project were not given the right “yes” ( those are very good quality projects), some other projects were passed with supporting interest group behind.
It is the time we should pause and rethink about the criteria, process, technology, and governance.
I know you have good intentions in mind here, and am genuinely curious what could be done to expedite the process of decentralization, we have some bright minds here so I have faith in a possible solution.
Do we take from this that there is already a plan for decentralization, it just hasn’t been shared yet?
Decentralization has always been a north star for the entire project, so the entire community (including the Foundation) has been thinking and planning around that from the start. The Foundation is preparing some longer form thinking to release to the community soon.
At the end of the day, “true” decentralization is both a spectrum and a never-ending process, so we certainly won’t have accounted for everything for all time. But exploring some of the highest-impact, “weakest link” focused steps (not far from what Polynya has outlined above) for the short to medium term is the next step.
Others have also recently weighed in on the discussion, such as Kelvin at OP Labs in the talk@Polynya referenced. The Foundation’s current views on next steps may be a bit different than Kelvin’s, or the ones in this post. But that’s exactly why Optimism is built in the open; and why community feedback and iteration are so central to the cause–especially with the Token House approving these kinds of upgrades. At the end of the day, I am personally confident that we’ll all get to the right place, and really thankful that the Collective is being driven by such thoughtful and principled calls to action.