Season 9: Security Council Cohort B Elections

Elections đź’Ľ
1

As outlined in the Security Council Charter, it is time the Optimism Security Council to hold re-elections for Cohort B. All elected members will serve a 12 month term and there are no term limits.

The current membership of Cohort B is:

  • L2BEATs
  • OP Labs
  • Coinbase
  • Test in Prod
  • Ink
  • World

Member Responsibilities

Security Council key holding participants will be responsible for developing and complying with procedures to facilitate operations. As stated in the Charter:

  • Communication and coordination among the participants;
  • Secure key management;
  • Verifying and promptly enacting Optimism Governance-approved upgrades and permission changes;
  • Notifying the other participants of, and collaborating in good faith to promptly resolve, defined emergency situations; and
  • Proving continued access to keys via periodic liveness checks, where participants must prove they can access their keys within a set time limit.
  • Members will be supported by OP stipends, pending Operating Budget submission by the Council Lead and approval by the Token House. Operating expenses will be reimbursed by the Foundation.
  • The Security Council legal agreement also covers participants against certain liabilities.

For security purposes, details of these procedures should remain private among the Council.

Lead Responsibilities

As stated in the Charter, the Council Lead, meanwhile, is responsible for supporting the implementation and operationalization of the aforementioned procedures, including by:

  • Alerting key holders of upcoming protocol upgrade or role permissioning proposals going through Governance;
  • Managing required timelines;
  • Scheduling, setting agendas, and hosting Council meetings and facilitating discussions;
  • Monitoring compliance with the procedures;
  • Onboarding new Council participants; and
  • Communicating with external stakeholders, including Optimism Governance, as to Council operations. All Security Council participants are expected to perform these responsibilities with the awareness that OP Chains, the OP Stack, the developing Superchain, and the associated products, tools, and documentation are in a rapidly evolving nascent state. To the extent that unforeseeable circumstances or ambiguities arise (including in connection with potential responses to Exception Events), the participants will work in good faith to resolve them consistent with the Charter and the Law of Chains.
  • In line with standard Council processes, the Lead will submit an Operating Budget to the Token House to request OP stipends from the Governance Fund.
  • Note: the Council Lead is not a key holder.

Finally, all Security Council participants are all subject to removal via the Representative Removal proposal type outlined in the Operating Manual.

Nomination Process

Anyone meeting the eligibility criteria outlined below may self-nominate to join Cohort B (including existing members) by completing the required self-nomination process. For this election, candidates can self-nominate by visiting atlas.optimism.io/governance and completing the relevant steps there. All candidates will be required to create an OP Atlas account and submit their self-nomination by May 25th at 19:00 GMT.

8 voter approvals from the Top 100 delegates will be required by May 27th at 19:00 GMT for any nominations to move to a vote. Voters may provide their approvals within atlas.optimism.io/governance by verifying their Top 100 delegate address here atlas.optimism.io/profile/verified-addresses and then following the relevant steps to approve candidates.

There is no limit to the number of terms a Security Council participant may serve.

Eligibility Considerations

Participants on the Security Council may be either individuals or entities.

  • Entity requirements:
    • Active and offers a service that benefits the blockchain community
    • Operating for at least one year with sufficient runway to continue for at least one year

All participants on the Security Council, whether individuals or entities, should be selected in accordance with the following criteria:

  • Reputation. Known, trusted individuals or entities that have demonstrated consistent alignment with the Optimistic Vision.
  • Technical competency. Baseline proficiency with the OP Stack and secure key management and signing standards. Additionally, candidates may be asked to sign into the OP Atlas app, connect GitHub, verify their wallet and calculate an expertise score. There is no minimum requirement for an expertise score, but it can serve as an indicator to help delegates evaluate a candidate’s technical expertise.
  • Alignment. Participants should not possess conflicts of interest that will regularly impact their ability to make impartial decisions in the performance of their role. Potential conflicts of interest could be, but are not limited to, affiliations with direct Optimism competitors, proven histories of exploiting projects or self-dealing, etc.
  • Ability to participate. A candidate’s willingness and ability to actively participate and fulfil the member responsibilities, dedicating an average of approximately 5 active hours per month hours per month, should be considered. Please note that there is an “on-call” aspect to this role that is not fully encompassed in the active hours estimate.
  • Geographic diversity. The number of participants that reside in any country should be less than the quorum required for multisig action. The Foundation is responsible for ensuring this criteria is met. If a new member would surpass the threshold of signers from any one country, the next qualifying runner up will fill their place.
  • Diversity of interests. No more than 1 elected member is associated with a particular entity, or that entity’s employees or affiliates. The Foundation is responsible for ensuring this criteria is met. If multiple members from the same entity are elected, the next qualifying runner up will fill the place of any duplicate positions held by the same entity.

The Optimism Foundation may appoint nominees after the self-nomination deadline, or take such other administrative steps as necessary or appropriate, if there are fewer than 6 eligible member nominees.

Elections

Elections will run from May 28th - June 3rd and use approval voting. Approval voting is set up such that voters can place a vote for any number of nominees with their full voting power. In the case of approval/ranked choice votes, voters may vote for themselves, so long as they also cast votes for the remaining elected positions.

Once elected, all participants will be required to pass an eligibility screening process before being added to the Council. This process may include KYC/AML and sanctions screening, and a requirement that the member sign a standard contract, which will be implemented at the discretion of the Optimism Foundation. If a candidate fails the screen after being elected, the next qualified runner up to pass the screening may take their place.

Newly elected members that pass the Foundation’s screen will begin their 12 month term on August 9th.

Removal of Council members

All members are subject to removal via the Representative Removal proposal type outlined in the Operating Manual. A valid Representative Removal proposal related to a Security Council member must be posted to the forum and must receive 8 approvals (which is higher than the default for this proposal type) to initiate a vote in the next nearest voting cycle (a delay of 3 weeks maximum).

The Security Council or Foundation can also act unilaterally to remove a participant who fails to satisfy the requirements of the Charter if such failure falls within the defined scope of emergency powers.

In either of the above removal scenarios, an election for a removed member’s replacement should occur in the same, or next nearest, voting cycle as the removal. The Foundation will maintain a shortlist of strong candidates that are interested in joining the Council and could be nominated quickly, subject to the eligibility requirements, if need be.

There is no emergency replacement procedure as the required signing threshold is automatically lowered in the case a liveness check or emergency removal by the Security Council or Foundation.

Key Dates for Candidates

  • April 23th through May 25th at 19:00 GMT: Candidates post their self-nomination via OP Atlas.
  • By May 27th at 19:00 GMT: Nominations must receive 8 Top 100 delegate approvals via OP Atlas to be considered valid.
  • May 28th - June 3rd: Security Council Cohort B Member elections take place.
  • In the meantime: Candidates must pass Foundation screening and complete rehearsals.
  • August 9th, 2026: 12 month term begins for the new Cohort B!
5 Likes
4

Post has been updated to reflect Foundation’s decision to postpone elections until Voting Cycle #53 to ensure all interested candidates have enough time to nominate. All dates have been updated accordingly.

1 Like
5

Suggestion: Add a Non-Technical Observer Role to the Security Council

The current eligibility criteria heavily favors technical expertise but I’d like to propose including one Non-Technical Member in Cohort B.

Why?
Technical members focus on how things work. A non-technical observer focuses on whether things are working as the community intended catching governance misalignment, process anomalies, and communication gaps that pure technical review can miss.

Defined Role:

  • Monitor every Council action and decision

  • Flag governance or process red flags

  • Publish plain-language summaries for the broader community

  • Bridge the gap between the Security Council and non-technical OP holders

Many DAO failures aren’t caused by technical bugs they stem from poor oversight and governance culture. A mixed team is a stronger team.

I encourage the Elections Committee to consider formalizing this in the Cohort B structure.

@system

1 Like
6

The Developer Advisory Boards exists for many of these reasons. The Developer Advisory Board has technical expertise and also monitors the OP Labs development process and votes on all protocol upgrades. Governance may veto, or override, the DAB’s decision to provide additional oversight on the DAB and allows the ultimate authority to remain with voters. The Security Council merely acts as a “governance oracle” and implements upgrades as instructed by governance outcomes; they do not exercise discretion in normal operations. You can read the Charters of the Developer Advisory Board and Security Council here.

3 Likes
7

@lavande Thanks for the detailed response and the charter links.

But I want to clarify my suggestion wasn’t about replacing DAB’s technical oversight. DAB monitors how upgrades work technically. My proposal is about whether governance outcomes are being communicated clearly to the broader, non-technical community.

The Operating Manual itself requires 30% quorum for many votes. If non-technical OP holders don’t understand what they’re voting on, how is informed participation possible?

DAB = technical process monitor
Security Council = governance oracle
Missing = public-facing accountability layer in plain language

A Non-Technical Observer doesn’t duplicate DAB it fills a communication gap that neither DAB nor Security Council is chartered to address. This is about governance culture, not technical review.

8

All candidates that received delegate approvals will move forward as eligible candidates in Voting Cycle #53 rather than just those with =>8 approvals. This is to ensure there are more candidates than open positions on the Council.

4 Likes
9

The Voting Cycle #53 vote failed to reach quorum (see here.)

We will run the vote again immediately, running through June 10th with an adjusted votable supply. The Foundation has updated the votable supply calculation to better reflect active governance participation. Voting power from the top 50 delegates who have never participated in a governance vote and who received their delegations more than three voting cycles ago will be excluded from the votable supply calculation. This adjustment only affects the computed quorum, the quorum threshold remains the same (30%.) It does not remove any delegate’s ability to vote, change candidate eligibility, or otherwise affect how votes are counted.

3 Likes
10

Never mind voter apathy we are heading for participation apathy.
OP’s aggressive push to minimize governance a few years back has been detrimental. It killed governance. We just failed quorum on what i consider our most important vote of the year. We even failed to get an adequate number of nominees for Cohort B elections.

Gov minimization,
Zero gov incentives,
OP token down +/- 98%. Every delegator and delegate that has held/delegated OP early on is down bad, and has either lost interests or loosing interest.

Unfortunately, treating governance as an obstacle to minimize instead of a foundation to build and flourish gives us an empty shell with no one left to show up.

Governance is difficult. It means dealing with 1000’s of opinions and perspectives. But that’s exactly why it needs to be actively built, incentivized, and strengthened, not minimized. The hard path is often the only path that works.

Optimism has strong tech adoption and transaction growth in parts of the Superchain, but the token and governance have suffered from misaligned incentives, dilution, key ecosystem losses (Base), and a deliberate minimization of governance structures. This has created a vicious cycle: low price == low participation == weaker governance == even lower confidence in the token.

We need to review Optimisms priorities to bring interest back, the goal should be that there is a desire for users, grant receivers, council members, team unlocks and “airdrop receivers” to delegate their OP.

3 Likes
11

These last two posts by the foundation feel like improvisation on the fly, for what should be the most carefully run vote the Collective holds: the Security Council.

Here’s what scares me. Look at the last election: the top candidate won with ~16M OP. Under approval voting, one person can vote their full stake for six candidates at once. So if I show up with ~16M OP (about $2M at today’s price) I clear the leader, I sweep all six seats, and I drag turnout past the quorum that just failed. One buyer. Six seats. All for just ~$2M.

And it’s not even $2M at risk, you can hedge the OP price for the week around the vote, so the real cost is tiny. For that, you get six salaries, plus the thing that actually matters: six seats on the multisig that signs upgrades for OP Mainnet and OP Stack chains.

I really hope this is a one-time thing. Because if it isn’t, you can expect disaster on the next proposal/ election. The door’s been left wide open for any malicious actor to walk through.

2 Likes
12

echoing this, It’s unclear exactly when things began to decline, but we’ve now reached a point where we failed to meet quorum on one of the most important votes in any governance system, especially for a stack supporting over 30 chains.

In aiming to minimize workload, it seems we’ve ended up doing no work at all. This failed vote serves as a clear wake-up call. It’s not problematic for delegates and badge holders to hold differing opinions, in fact, that’s healthy. However, the majority chose to reduce discussion, citing workload concerns, rather than filtering valuable feedback from the overwhelming number of comments.

Linda was a great contributor, but she has since left. Polynya repeatedly souted out voter apathy, but unfortunately, their feedback went unheard, and they too have departed. Moreover, there hasn’t been any governance-related communication from the official Optimism X or Farcaster handles in quite some time.

There was a time when Optimism’s governance model was widely discussed. I used to actively read and comment about it on Reddit, X, and Farcaster. The two-pillar DAO approach inspired people like me to get involved. Even though my voting power and reach are limited, I felt committed to the mission, and I believe many newcomers felt the same. However, over the past few months, that sense of purpose has been slowly fading. On an individual level, it may be due to a lack of clear vision: Where does Optimism want to go, both as an L2 and as a DAO? As for the Foundation, while I can’t say for certain, their limited media engagement suggests they may also be losing direction, at least to some extent.

3 Likes
13

Update, post-second-vote:

The re-run passed, and it confirms the concern from my post above; if anything, it undercuts my own numbers. With the 7th-place candidate sitting around ~6M OP, the bar to win a seat was far lower than the ~16M I’d used as a reference. A single voter holding ~8M OP (testinprod), lifted all six of its chosen candidates and effectively decided the entire cohort alone. At today’s OP price (~$0.10), that’s roughly $800k, well below my original ~$2M figure, and cheaper still if the OP is hedged for the voting week.

To be clear: Test in Prod is an established, trusted entity, and nothing here implies bad faith on their part. They aren’t to blame for the low turnout, nor for the mechanism being left this exposed. That’s the whole point; the outcome was fine because the largest participant happened to be trustworthy, not because the design prevented capture. The multisig that signs upgrades for OP Mainnet and the Stack shouldn’t depend on goodwill. I hope this round is treated as the wake-up call it is, before a less friendly actor reaches the same conclusion.

I’m aware I’m mostly speaking into an empty room here: hardly anyone reads this forum anymore, and the Foundation has effectively wound the DAO down. So I’m writing this less to be heard than for the record: whenever someone looks back, let it at least be documented that the risk was named while the door was still wide open.

4 Likes
14

Hi all,

I’m writing to let the community know I’m resigning from the Cohort B seat I was elected to. I’ve accepted a full-time role that requires my full attention and precludes me from effectively serving on the Council.

Thanks to the delegates who supported my candidacy.

I’ve already notified the Foundation, and they’re coordinating next steps for the seat. Happy to answer questions here or via DM.

Matt

3 Likes
15

Consistent with prior procedure, the candidate (Alex Soto) with the next most votes (aka the runner-up) will be asked to take position.

1 Like