Sharing the voting rationale on behalf of the SEEDGov delegation, as forum settings limited 3 consecutive replies
SEEDGov rational for Special Cycle #39a and Special Cycle #39b below.
Special Voting Cycle#39a
Season 8: Intent Ratification: Vote FOR
We support this proposal as a natural continuation of Season 7’s direction. The decision to focus on a single Intent aligned with the Superchain Product Vision shows a clear path forward. We’re especially excited with the goal of shipping interop!
Season 8 Developer Advisory Board Charter amendment: Vote FOR
We’re in favor of this update. We trust Ed @wildmolasses as DAB lead and support giving the Board authority over protocol upgrade approvals, it’s a perfect fit for a technically rigorous team. Delegating Developer Adoption Grants to this group also makes sense. Plus, we appreciate the shift to 12 month terms: longer mandates might mean less churn and stronger team cohesion.
Season 8 Grants Council Charter: Vote FOR
We’re aligned with the direction here. The Council’s leaner structure continues the momentum from the last two Seasons, and we’re excited to see the use of AI to improve intake processes. Measuring impact in ETH is also a good move—it’s simple, clear, and grounded in real value.
Season 8 Milestones and Metrics Council Charter: Vote FOR
This proposal formalizes the structure that @PGov effectively operated under in S7. It replaces vague language with clear multisig parameters, outlines signing responsibilities, and maintains alignment with collective policy. This charter reinforces stability and operational clarity for S8.
Governor Update Proposal: Removing Abstain Count from Quorum: Vote FOR
We appreciate Griff for providing context on the proposal and its impact. We understand that removing Abstain from quorum calculations increases the number of actual votes required for a proposal to pass, which at first glance seems like a security improvement. Also, we see this proposal as a valid step toward encouraging more active participation.
It would be interesting to further explore the rationale behind delegates choosing to vote Abstain. Is it merely about stepping back from the decision while still signaling participation and helping meet quorum (positive-abstain)? Or does it imply a conscious choice to withhold a decision in a way that intentionally demands a broader voter base (negative-abstain)?
For instance, in elections, a positive-abstain makes sense, while in technical decisions, a negative-abstain might be more appropriate. In the case of security or technical proposals, this change seems logical, as it prevents a small number of delegates from passing proposals in scenarios with high abstention for whatever reason.
In case of optimistic approvals, the concept of abstaining loses much of its function. We believe this shift might be beneficial, especially since Abstain votes were not counted toward quorum in optimistic approvals either. This helps prevent scenarios where a small amount of OP determines outcomes for decisions like elections, general expenditures, and other matters beyond technical upgrades, which are already subject to optimistic approvals.
Special Voting Cycle#39b
Upgrade 16 Proposal: Interop Contracts, Stage 1, and Go 1.23 Support in Cannon: Vote FOR
Interop is the core intent of Season 8 and this upgrade delivers the contracts to support it.
Removing the DeputyGuardianModule is a meaningful decentralization step, and aligning with L2Beat’s Stage 1 ensures we stay in the right path. Also Cannon updates for Go 1.23 and Kona bring needed infra maturity. Minor friction with re proving withdrawals is acceptable.
Budget Board Advisory Proposal for the DAO Operating Budget for Seasons 8 and 9: Vote FOR
Appreciate the updates. Moving to a yearly budget based on protocol revenue is the right path.
Using TTM revenue plus a six-month TWAP makes sense for stability. Giving council leads some flexibility is also accurate.
That said, it’s hard to see what this budget is actually trying to achieve or what tradeoffs were made. A bit more clarity on priorities and outcomes would make a big difference.
The Retroactive Allocation is valuable, but it would be helpful to have clearer expectations around how those funds will be allocated. Without guidelines, there’s a risk that retroactive rewards become difficult to track or assess across seasons. Same goes for the 80K OP request, more detail would help justify it.