SEEDGov - Delegate Communication Thread

Delegates 🏛 Delegate Updates
41

UPDATE 2024: At SEED Latam, we are a constantly evolving community, dynamically adapting to ecosystem transformations to continue providing value and a critical vision, as expressed in our presentation in the Delegates Commitments thread almost two years ago in the Collective.

We have grown and evolved, iterating just like the Collective does. Transitioning from DeFi LATAM to SEED Latam, we have expanded our reach and reaffirmed our commitment to supporting communities and leaders in Latin America. Throughout 2022 and 2023, we organized over 15 governance calls with the participation of 161 individuals. In each community meeting, we shared updates and discussed governance and protocol proposals, inviting members of the Optimism Collective (delegates, builders, among others) to promote the Optimistic Vision.

Looking ahead to the new year, with the expansion of governance and new responsibilities as delegate (Anticapture Commission, Joxes position on Grants Council, among other tasks), and maintaining the collaborative spirit that characterizes us, we have integrated new members into the team to stay current with Optimism’s governance.

The new team members who will contribute and accompany us on this journey are:

  • @Manugotsuka: Electrical Engineer. Researcher in L2 en Español, specifically on articles related to Ethereum’s scaling solutions, including Optimism news. He contributes to governance for SEED Latam, where he has assisted the Arbitrum delegation in various functions such as community calls, proposal drafting, and decision-making. He is also part of the team that forms the “Education, Community Growth, and Events” domain, responsible for evaluating and allocating grants to boost the Arbitrum ecosystem. Now he collaborates with supporting Optimism’s Anticapture Commission responsibilities by assisting the delegation with specific tasks.

  • @Pumbi: Business Administration. Head of Content at Solow and Team Leader of Optimism en Español. Deeply involved in the Optimism ecosystem, he is part of the Ambassadors, Translators, and Support NERDs program. He is collaborating in the day-to-day activities of the delegation, such as in the Mission Request tracking.

  • @habacuc.eth: Innovation and Development Engineer with Master’s in Technology Management. R&D at Zenbit.eth, a digital laboratory. Since 2020, he has developed several web3 prototypes with OSS, with 2 projects presented at the Innovation in Transparency Contest 2022 and 2023 organized by the National Institute of Transparency, Access to Information (INAI). He documented the process in the article “DAO Cities: Decentralizing city data and governance using Web3,” published in Mexico Transparente magazine of the National Transparency System in Mexico. He participated as a “Catalyst” in the ReFi DAO and has organized workshops and presentations on web3 in the city of Querétaro. He contributes to supporting Joxes in tasks related to Missions and Grants Council.

With this renewed team, we will cover our responsibilities, continue contributing to the Collective and continue spreading the Optimistic Vision worldwide. We want to express our gratitude to the team that accompanied us in previous seasons: @NicoProducto, @Netrim, @Jadmat, and @CryptoChica, with whom we shared throughout the past seasons. Thanks to their dedication, we have stayed updated with all governance decisions and shared them with the community.

We will also change the focus of governance calls, which we have conducted continuously during previous seasons. In a few weeks, we will announce the changes.

Finally, we want to thank everyone who is part of the Optimistic Collective and our community for accompanying us. We hope to continue providing a different voice and perspective to governance. Stay Optimistic!

4 Likes
42

Voting Cycle #17 decisions

Three proposals were put forward for consideration by the delegates; We summarize below our decisions made:

  1. Upgrade Proposal #3: Delta Network Upgrade: For

After reviewing and consulting on the implications of this upgrade, we support it.

  1. Proposal to Reclassify Grant Misusage Enforcement: For
    We support the proposed changes and hope the Code of Conduct Council will do a good job. If these changes result in a worse process, we will advocate for reversion or iteration.

  2. Summary of Code of Conduct enforcement decisions: No action taken

We don’t have any compelling reasons to vote against.

1 Like
43

Voting Cycle #18 decisions

During the first weeks of cycle 18, the delegation was busy reviewing different mission requests, providing feedback and evaluations, and giving approvals to move a vote. You can check this in my profile activity.

For the voting phase, a new proposed upgrade and vote for approval of mission requests took place; here our rationale:

  • Mission Requests:
    We vote for those who we believe will bring value to the Collective. When considering Intent #1, we also follow the criteria set by the Developer Advisory Board. For Intent #2 and #3, we take into account the limited budget. As a result, we have voted in favor of the following Mission Requests:

8 Likes
44

Voting Cycle #19 decisions

During this voting cycle, two upgrade proposals were put forward to the Collective. At the SEED Latam delegation, we expressed our support for both proposals and, as a result, we voted in favor of them. To give you a quick summary, here’s an excerpt from the discussion threads with our reasonings:

2 Likes
45

1) Voting Cycle #21 decisions

Two proposals were presented for consideration: a) Improved Advanced Delegation, which is a protocol update for the Optimism governor, and b) Intent Budget Proposal #2, aimed at reallocating Season 5 Intents funds. Both were approved to proceed to a vote. We voted FOR the first proposal and abstained from voting on the second one. Details are posted below:

2) Token House participation and incentives: 2nd Report

We have delivered the 2nd Token House participation and incentives Report, intending to provide digested quantitative information and relevant insights to track governance activity across seasons. This report focuses on the first half of Season 5. Comments and feedback over the topics raised and report itself are welcomed.

For a look at our previous report targeting Season 4, please read here.

3) Comments and feedback

Lastly, we have been analyzing the progress of Season 5 as well as the new announcements made by the Optimism Foundation. We have provided important comments and raised some questions. Please see below to follow the discussion:

5 Likes
46

SEED Latam Delegation: What’s Coming in Season 6

It’s been two years since we launched our first delegation in SEED Latam (formerly DeFi LATAM) on Optimism. In the beginning, our vision as both a community and individuals was to bring a community voice from this part of the world to help scale Ethereum.

Since that initial statement, we have evolved as an organization alongside the Optimism Collective and actively contributed to the growth of the collective in our region. Throughout 2022, 2023, and 2024, we’ve organized over 18 open governance meetings in Spanish with more than 161 participants, where we shared updates and discussed all governance proposals. Our main goal was to engage the community in governance while promoting the Optimistic Vision.

SEED Latam and our delegations have always promoted collective participation. In addition to the public meetings we’ve organized, many collaborators have contributed to this delegation and the Optimism Collective.

With everything mentioned above, we reaffirm our commitment to the Optimistic Vision and the Collective. We will continue to contribute as an organization to governance, but we believe some changes are necessary as we approach Season 6 and new directions on governance are ahead.

A slight change in our objectives

In this new transition, we want to focus on contributing to the path towards metagovernance, particularly in the new governance processes. We understand that this new direction is crucial for the decentralization of the protocol and the future of governance, and we want to contribute to achieving this mission.

SEEDGov Delegation, a step on our working methodology

The SEEDLatam delegation in Optimism has always worked with contributors, meaning that our contributions to the collective are collaborative. This is why we want to deepen this methodology that we’ve been implementing by taking the next step. Starting from Season 6, we will formalize our operations as a platform (similar to Synthetix, L2beat, GFXLabs, etc.), led by @joxes in collaboration with @SEEDGov,@axlvaz, @habacuc.eth, @delphine, and @Pumbi. This methodology aims to maintain the delegation’s activity and contributions in each new vertical the collective explores.

It is worth mentioning that this new approach that is being implemented by the delegation accompanies a broader reorganization of the SEEDOrg collective. SEEDGov is the first delegation platform in Latam founded on community values. It will continue to operate as a vertical focused on decentralized governance in the web3 space, emphasizing active participation, community engagement, decision-making, and experimentation, creating capable teams focused on the emerging needs of DAOs and protocols.

Future ahead

With these changes, we aim to deepen our participation and commitment to the Optimism Collective. We strive to serve as perpetual contributors, providing value in the best possible way, and positively impacting the decision-making process within the governance structure. Let’s work together to achieve the Superchain future we all envision.

7 Likes
47

Cycle #23a

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

2 Likes
48

Cycle #23b

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

2 Likes
49

Cycle #24

Below, we present the rationale from the SEED Latam delegation for our voting during cycle #24.

At SEED Latam, we have selected mission requests that, in our opinion, have an appropriate scope and potential beneficial outcome for the stage Optimism is currently in.

4 Likes
50

Cycle #26

Below, we present the rationale for our voting during cycle #26.

At SEEDGov, we have decided to vote for Alisha as Lead again because we believe she has performed well in Season 5. We value her experience and understanding of the role, which is why we support her re-election for this term.

We raised concerns about the number of positions available for the Security Council, as the forum mentioned 7 positions, while the vote and town hall referenced only 6. Therefore, from the start, we decided to vote for seven members. We have selected what we believe are the best candidates for the Security Council based on their expertise, reputation, geographic and jurisdictional diversity, and the unique value they bring to the role. We would also like to thank all applicants for their interest in being part of such an important role.

To explain why we made this decision, we want to give some background and share our thoughts.

Background

The Fault Proof proposal was introduced three months ago. The upgrade included one of the most anticipated implementations: real fraud proofs. However, the proposal included two key aspects that raised many questions and doubts about the actual impact and risk of the upgrade: the lack of a complete audit of the system and the conception of the Guardian roles as a consequence.

Amid various concerns and questions, a key comment by Zach was raised regarding the risks introduced by this upgrade; most of them were understood by us within the “reputational risk” category, as the Guardian role was specifically set to minimize any existential risk. For us, our position was to abstain due to the present risk, aligning with the opinion of the DAB leader. We highly value the minimization of reputational risk. Nevertheless, the Collective sent a strong signal in favor of the upgrade.

Granite

As detailed, bugs were found, which was certainly an expected outcome given the circumstances. Most of the fixes are related to the findings identified in the audit results. In order to move forward, that is, to return to the mode where fault proofs are fully operational, these fixes need to be implemented.

Implementing this upgrade should objectively move us to a safer stage than before, prior to the permissioned mode being triggered. However, it is mentioned how complex Fault Proofs are, so more bugs could still be present. As the safeguards are assumed to be well-audited and managed by the Security Council and Foundation, it should be acceptable to continue having the system as is, even though there are multiple concerns about its design, implementation, and maturity.

Going ahead

All the discussions across various instances about this upgrade have left us with several points to consider for the Collective:

  1. Highlight the importance of the Developer Advisory Board in keeping delegates well-informed and, in a sense, making recommendations and outlining expected outcomes for each possible choice. Also, all delegates should ensure that every aspect of protocol upgrade proposals is sufficiently understood before offering support.
  2. The preference for more conservative measures has been expressed by some members of the Collective that should be taken into account. In a scenario where Audits vs. Shipping, the balance might lean more towards the former.
  3. Related to point (2), the Collective should revisit the Audit Framework, as the sense of reputational risk could be more highly valued than the current version suggests.
  4. Expectations on what the Fault Proof roadmap should look like, including the communication of the current constraints and challenges around it and how the system should evolve, regardless of the approach to a multi-proof system.
  5. The pertinent disclosure of how the running and monitoring of the system actually work, and which nice-to-have features would be appropriate to encourage, for governance’s awareness. This includes any action that could favor the redundancy of the system’s monitoring.
5 Likes
51

Voting Cycle #27 Decisions

Below, we provide the rationale behind our voting decisions for Cycle #27.

FOR:

Regarding Request 3: Superchain Borrow/Lend Aggregator we have raised concerns regarding the funding amount for this Mission Request and are currently withholding our vote. While the mission can be executed within one year, it is dependent on interoperability, which might consume valuable development time. We prefer to wait until the interoperability standard is fully effective before implementing this mission.

About Request 8 Optimism Full Financial Audit, we believe it cannot proceed without the support of the Foundation or OP Labs. Since the treasury operates on-chain and payments are managed by a multisig that requires verification from the Foundation, we abstain from voting on it.

2 Likes
52

We are excited to share with the Collective our relaunch: we are now SEEDGov!

From SEED Latam to SEED Org: About a broader reorganization into SEEDGov, SEEDNode and SEED Latam

As SEED Latam evolved, so has our scope. We grew from a community into SEED Org, an organization with three key verticals: SEEDGov is our Delegate Platform, the first Latam-based platform actively engaged in governance activities; SEEDNodes focuses on nodes infrastructure and education services; and SEED Latam, our original branch, is centered on communities, collaboration hubs, and knowledge-sharing, hosting online initiatives. We invite you to know more about us here. For this reason, the rebranding to SEEDGov reflects our aim to streamline our structure—SEEDGov focuses on governance, while SEED Latam continues with community-driven initiatives. This distinction helps clarify our identity, both internally and externally.

Our early days:
Before delving into the details of this rebranding, let’s take a brief look at our journey. The SEED Latam delegation in Optimism has always embraced a collaborative approach, with contributions from various members along the way. Throughout this journey ,we’ve been fortunate to have the support of several collaborators across past seasons. Our delegation in Optimism has worked to spread knowledge about Optimism within the Spanish-speaking community, primarily in Latin America. We’ve taken this effort further by actively involving the community in the delegation’s decisions and voting. You can read more about this in our articles The Social Consensus of SEED Latam and The composition of the SEED Latam delegates vote.

Adapting to Optimism’s iteration:
Optimism continually evolves with new structures, roles, and responsibilities each season. To keep pace, we have expanded and reorganized our team, ensuring that we can contribute in all the directions the Collective is growing. Our deep understanding of the OP stack and governance mechanisms enables us to align our work seamlessly with the needs of the protocol, builders, and end-users, thus making meaningful contributions to the community. As a result, we’ve consolidated a team with specific roles that operates horizontally. Our team is composed of @Joxes as tech researcher -who participated in the Grants Council for the Builders vertical during S5; @Pumbi as governance analyst-collaborator on Token House participation and incentives: Season 5 (Cycle 16-19) and member of the Code of Conduct Council S6; @delphine e as coordinator and @Fehz as governance lead of SEEDGov, the delegation platform of SEED Org. Additionally, we are collaborating with partners like Zenbit for developing tools.

Today: A Governance Platform
Amid Season 6, we are at a key moment of crystallizing this methodology and continue to operate horizontally, where each member tackles a specific role, functioning as a platform similar to others in the ecosystem.

Finally, in line with this evolution, we are pleased to announce that you will now find us on the forum as SEEDGov. Additionally, we will soon change our ENS to SEEDGov (op.seedgov.eth).

delegacion op
delegacion op1500×600 56 KB

8 Likes
53

Sharing the voting rationale on behalf of the SEEDGov delegation, as forum settings limited 3 consecutive replies, so we couldn’t post from the SEEDGov account.

Voting Cycle #28 & #29 Decisions

Below, we share the rationale for our voting during cycle #28 and #29.

Voting Cycle 28

  • Rolling Mission Requests: In favor

At SEEDGov, we have voted FOR this Mission Request. For us, stablecoins and payments remain the primary consumer use case, with significant room for growth in this area. So experimenting with alternative stablecoins aligns with this vision. We trust the Grants Council to carefully evaluate and approve applications with a clear strategy for increasing usage.

  • Governor Update Proposal #3: Enable Onchain Treasury Execution: In favor

SEEDGov endorses this proposal since is pertinent for implementation. We believe that enabling on-chain treasury execution represents an upgrade, providing a step toward independence and allowing the DAO to autonomously manage its resources.

Voting Cycle 29

  • Season 6: Standard Rollup Charter Ratification: In favor

SEEDGov votes FOR ratifying this framework. During the last Token House call, our forum inquiries regarding this proposal were adequately addressed: Season 6: Standard Rollup Charter Ratification - #10 by SEEDGov

The proposal introduces important safeguards, such as granting Chain Governors blocking rights over protocol upgrades specific to their chains. However, we recognize the inherent risks this entails. To mitigate these risks, it’s essential that chains unable to keep pace with protocol upgrades are disconnected. We will closely monitor the chains holding this privileged role to analyze what it means for the ecosystems involved.

Note: For Voting Cycle 30, the final one in Season 6, no votes took place.

3 Likes
54

Special Voting Cycle #31a Decisions

Below, we present the rationale from the SEED Gov delegation for our voting during Special voting cycle#31a.

Due to the ambitious and complex nature of the final objective, having a single, unified intent is a positive step. However, the tangible benefits will likely emerge around mid-Season 8, as interoperability is expected to roll out toward the end of Season 7.

We find the Scope Reduction particularly interesting: the decrease from 18 to 9 members reflects lessons learned from the previous season. We’re eager to see how this new structure plays out, especially with role migrations to other councils—Audit reviews moving to the DAB and the creation of the M&M Council as a separate entity.

That said, there are a few points we’re not fully comfortable with:
1. Lead Compensation (1): 35,000 OP – Although it’s noted as “the same as Season 6,” this could cause confusion. In Season 5, the Token House approved 30,000 OP for the Lead and 10,000 OP for Ops. Technically, the Lead’s allocation was 30,000 OP, not 35,000, regardless of the specific circumstances that led to the higher payment.
2. RetroFunding Budget – We find this allocation somewhat problematic. If several councils are not applying for Retro Funding due to difficulties in measuring the Grants Council’s impact, as well as the unpredictability of the rounds, it points to a flaw in the design of Retro Funding itself.
3. Reporting Standards – While Cycle Reports are required, we believe the council should produce a final report with metrics** rather than just an End-of-Season Retrospective filled with reflections.
4. Reserve Budget – We need better systems for tracking workflows to ensure that any use of the additional reserve budget aligns with actual workload and priorities.

We see value in the formalization of this council as an independent council separate from the Grants Council. Maintaining the same budgets as Season 6—Milestones and Metrics Reviewers (3): 25,000 OP each and Milestones and Metrics Lead (3): 20,000 OP each—seems reasonable. The Retroactive Funding Reserve Bonus: 20,000 OP (new for S7) is also noteworthy. Since the M&M Council will not apply for RetroFunding, citing the long timeframe (a year or more) needed to observe results and the difficulty of quantifying their impact, this highlights a broader issue: RetroFunding may need adjustments to better align with governance processes.

Although there is a nearly 200% budget increase compared to Season 5, and no benchmarks were provided relative to similar budgets in other DAOs, we believe the Security Council remains an essential entity. It will serve as a critical safeguard for all chains in the Superchain.

The DAB’s expanded responsibilities—including selecting applicants for Foundation Missions and actively shaping these missions—justify the proposed changes. The increase in the Lead’s compensation (30,000 OP, +5,000 OP from last season) seems reasonable.
Other improvements include:
- The addition of the Audit Request Team (2): 12,500 OP each (a reduction of 2,500 OP from the Grants Council budget).
- The introduction of the Mission Scouts (2) role.
We also see value in the inclusion of a detailed explanation of the DAB’s assessment of protocol upgrades. This shift, shared by the Lead, eliminates the need for the “Upgrade Czar” role. However, we believe that the non-technical summaries are very useful and should not be replaced.
The decision to exclude RetroFunding participation (similar to the Grants Council and M&M Council) while assigning a Bonus Payment of 50,000 OP—the same amount awarded through RetroPGF in Season 6—again underscores a need to revisit and refine the RetroFunding model.

We expect this council’s role will gain importance as new chains and participants with significant voting power join the governance. Seasons 5 and 6 were a good training for the ACC to consolidate and fulfill its role at the level expected.

We see these as valid experiments. Before interoperability goes live on the Superchain, these missions will help ensure the ecosystem is well-prepared for smooth and robust adoption.

We are not entirely convinced that this is the right way to go, but we support the Collective’s sentiment. We believe that the dissolution of this Council in terms of decentralization of resolution-making is a step backward and that there was an opportunity to make adjustments to get to a point that would work better for everyone.

An important consideration:

We want to express our concern regarding the current budgets that include a Retro Funding allocation this season. While this is clearly a response to the suboptimal Retro Funding system, which appears to be one of the drivers behind this strategy, it doesn’t make sense given the original purpose of optimal allocation. Governance retro-rewards should be decided and controlled by external actors, not pre-included in the budget proposal without any safeguards.*

2 Likes