I have a bit of a dump of questions:
- why are the parameters set the way they are?
- I don’t have enough context on the technical implementation of the OP Stack, and the tradeoffs of different parameter changes, so what’s more important (to me) is how these decisions were made. Was it just OP Labs? Input from other teams?
- I also think what’s most important is that standard rollup chains are
- Easily verifiable (as in, it’s easy to independently verify that a rollup chain is “standard”)
- Secure
- Sufficiently standardized to be interoperable with other standard rollup chains (as interoperable tech improves)
- What stake holders have given input on this charter?
- Which chains are expected to follow this charter?
- Who decides which chains get a special multisig with a “Chain Governor” like Base and Unichain? What criteria was used to decide it for Base and Unichain?
As a side note, I think there should be some way to make these proposals requiring high technical understanding more accessible to the broader community. As I was getting at above, without the background to analyze the technicals of this proposal, or verify its soundness, it would be nice to have some confidence that a lot of thought and review was put into this proposal. I like the format of protocol upgrades where they talk about risks, other reviewers, and the developer advisory board adds a summary and thoughts as well. I think proposals like this could benefit from the same.
Due to the lack of confidence in my ability to properly critique this proposal, I (on behalf of Blockchain@USC), will likely abstain on this proposal.