SEED Latam - Delegate Communication Thread

[Joxes]

Cycle #23a

Below, we present the rationale from the SEED Latam delegation for our voting during cycle #23a.

• Protocol Upgrade #7: Fault Proofs: Abstained.

@seedlatam

After carefully reviewing the proposal, we decided to abstain as a way to differentiate from a straightforward vote FOR. This is because we highly value the reputational risk involved with this proposal and want to minimize it. This means that in our assessment, Fault Proofs definitely need to happen at some point, but considering other security contests that are set to launch in the coming weeks, it makes sense to us that Fault Proofs deployment is not yet necessary. We believe that Fault Proofs as a whole, and the measures taken at the design level to convert OP Mainnet into a Stage 1 rollup, are correct. While the Guardian Role still holds central power, the setup designed around it makes sense to accomplish their expected function.

Finally, as we always emphasize, we hope that any findings regarding the Fault Proof protocol that could compromise its functionality or require alterations to its proposed design will be promptly communicated and the upgrade rescheduled accordingly.

• Upgrade #8: Guardian, Security Council Threshold and L2 ProxyAdmin Ownership changes for Stage 1 Decentralization: In favor.

@seedlatam

We believe it is important to continue moving towards the decentralization of the Guardian, as we see the role as a single point of failure. However, we consider beneficial increasing the Security Council Safe’s signing threshold from 4 to 10 out of 13, as this reduces the risk of having a single point of failure.

• Governor Update Proposal #2: Improvements to advanced delegation allowance calculations: In favor.

@seedlatam

This changes on the governor goes to the right direction, we’re happy to see live such improvements and requested features.

• Code of Conduct Council (CoCC) Operating Budget for Season 6: Against.

@seedlatam

After carefully reviewing the proposal, we’ve noted several considerations to make this decision. While we acknowledge the efforts made to refine the CoC, we do not find these changes sufficient to warrant the proposed budget increase and grow their structure. We believe that the increase in the budget and the number of members is not justified by the activities during Season 5. This proposed structure looks more like a experiment, but worth to explore under other processes (let’s say ad-honorem positions to be rewared via retroPGF if they have success). Therefore, not enough arguments are provided to makes this change reasonable to approve, or at least explaining the risks associated for Season 6 if no changes are made (let’s say, leaving the CoC Council as it).

• Season 6: Intents Ratification: In favor on both ratification and budget proposals.

@seedlatam

We think the scope for Intent 1 makes sense for now, as aligning Optimism’s goals with core developers and external teams might be challenging when referring to OP Stack development. In this regard, the work accumulated in Season 5 suffices for now and demostrate how difficult is to find alignment. Thus, we believe the GovFund making focus on decentralizing governance processes is reasonable. Regarding Intents 2, we agree that we’re currently in the stage where the efforts must be done from a very well-focused strategy. and for Intents 3, clearly pushing for more developer growth within the Superchain and launching applications is very positive and need to continue. About budgets, they seem appropriate for us and we have no comments in this regard.

• Season 6: Developer Advisory Board Renewal: voting for Zach Obront.

@seedlatam

The budget for the DAB was 70k in season 5, while now a budget between 90k and 122k is being requested. Therefore, the percentage increases compared to the previous season’s budget range from 28.57% to 74.29%. Ed Mazurek’s option offers timely feedback on technical issues. Although the DAB’s comments were very general and focused only on the winning proposals, we are not entirely sure that the additional amount requested justifies the increases. By evaluating all the arits: expertise, previous involvement, budget requested, proposed work structure and KPIs, looks appropiate for this Season.

We want to thank the efforts made by Ed Mazurek, happy to keep seeing him involved in other instances in the governance.

• Season 6: Grants Council Operating Budget: In favor.

@seedlatam

We believe that the changes in the Council structure, with a total of 18 members, represent a significant step in the right direction. We think that the addition of new roles, such as audit reviewers, can help lighten the workload of the current reviewers. The proposed 610k OP for operational expenses is higher than what was approved in the previous season, but considering that there will be at least 3 rounds during season 6 (each lasting between 3 and 4 weeks), unlike the 2 rounds in season 5, we understand that this increase may be necessary since more applications are expected throughout the 3 rounds.