The post “Accelerated Decentralization Proposal For Optimism” sparked a fruitful conversation that helped highlight an unresolved tension: several delegates maintain the thesis that sequencer fees are going to 0.
Considering that Optimism’s revenues are tied to sequencer revenues, exploring alternative ways to generate income (contributing to the sustainability of the collective and its programs) is highly strategic.
While there is no ‘immediate urgency’ to achieve this, I believe it would be beneficial to start a deeper conversation on this topic to tap into the collective intelligence.
To give structure to the process, I propose using the first two steps suggested by the ‘collective proposal creation’ described in the sociocratic model.
I like this framework because it emphasizes the importance of understanding the problem and defining ‘the rules of the game’ before jumping into suggesting solutions in a creative brainstorming process.
Collective Proposal Creation:
- Step 1 – Understanding the Issue: First, a moment where we focus on grasping the context before diving into solutions. The intention is to create a list of ‘dimensions’ that the proposal should include or take into consideration to address the underlying needs and ensure it is sustainable over time.
- Step 2 – Explore Ideas: A moment to aspire to collective creativity, widening the scope of ideas.
- Step 2a – Picture forming (dimensions): It is confirmed that there is shared understanding and acceptance of the ‘list of dimensions’ to consider, ensuring that all elements are compatible with each other.
- Step 2b – Gathering proposal ideas: A brainstorming session is invited, which can occur synchronously or asynchronously. Here, ideas may oppose each other. The goal is quantity over quality. Ideally, we all chip in with ideas.
- Step 2c – Synthesize: A smaller group of participants (whether representatives of stakeholders or leaders in the process) are invited to create a “Frankenstein” that integrates the best of all ideas in a way that addresses the entire (or a good portion of the) list of dimensions.
The result of this synthesis could be seen as a valuable input for the OP Foundation to create a proposal based on it, as suggested in the current phase of ‘The Path to Open Metagovernance’.
List of dimensions:
Therefore, the first step would be to agree (both the Foundation and Labs, as well as other relevant voices from the collective) on the list of questions/dimensions that any successful proposal (for a revenue model) must address. In other words, what elements it should include and what limitations exist.
Some examples of things to consider. The proposed model should:
- Be executable even if the sequencer fees go to 0.
- Respect the Working Constitution and the guiding principles of the Law of Chains.
- Be compatible with the protection of user rights and the security of funds from a technical perspective.
- Operate under a four-pillar design philosophy of simplicity, pragmatism, sustainability, and optimism.
- Contribute to scale Ethereum technology and values & build an internet that benefits all, and is owned by all.
Do you have any additional considerations that I haven’t mentioned? What is the frame of reference that we cannot forget? What prior agreements should not be modified?
cc. @GFXlabs @Gonna.eth @MattGov.eth @AnthiasLabs @ccerv1 @SEEDGov @LuukDAO @system
In conclusion, I hope you see this as an invitation to delve deeper into this conversation in a structured manner, with the confidence that we can continue to innovate in how we add value to the ecosystem sustainably over time.
If there is a previous thread or a better channel for this, I apologize for my ignorance. I remain attentive and at your disposal.
