Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin has proven support for Optimism’s new governance structure, noting that proposals for example while using OP token for gas charges shows “explicit representation of non-token-holder interests.”
Optimism’s new governance structure involves two parties dubbed the “Token House” and “Citizens’ House.” The previous consists of OP governance token holders and also the latter includes “soul-bound” non-transferrable citizenship nonfungible token (NFT) proprietors.
Even though it is unclear if Buterin is fully aboard having a proposal from Thursday to make use of the OP governance token for gas charges, or simply happy that this type of discussion was happening, he noted on Twitter on Friday:
A great illustration of why I am so happy with @optimismPBC for adding non-token governance (the Citizen House).
Optimism clearly has goals *other* than simply “make OP increase”, and the only method to do this lengthy-term is by using explicit representation of non-token-holder interests. pic.twitter.com/vofVVx53mC
— vitalik.eth (@VitalikButerin) June 3, 2022
The 2 parties mostly oversee different objectives using the Token House given the job of project incentives, protocol upgrades and treasury funds, as the Citizens’ House is centered on retroactive public goods funding.
The duo also share governance decisions on network parameters and granting new citizenships towards the Citizens’ House, a thing that Buterin appears to understand in cases like this.
Based on Optimism, the amount of citizens in the Citizens’ House will grow with time, and also the “mechanism for disbursing Citizenships is decided through the Foundation with input in the Token House.”
On several occasions, Buterin has outlined his ideas the crypto sector must “move beyond gold coin voting” in decentralized finance (DeFi) or decentralized governance (DeGov) because it runs the potential risks of getting whale governance token holders dominating the voting process. Buterin argues this could frequently result in a short-term focus from the whales approving proposals that plan to pump the cost of certain assets.
This type of method can lead to small holders and platform users not getting a voice within the DeGov process, or what Buterin describes as too little non-token-hodler interests.
Even though many offered short and sharp comments of agreement, generally noting it will give OP more utility, numerous others required time to obviously outline why these were from the idea.
One member, Kethic, mentioned, “I don’t think this is an excellent idea. Burning voting turn on a governance structure feels not a good idea,” while user Vrede mentioned:
“Optimism is EVM equivalent. Accepting OP tokens as gas means abandoning EVM equivalence. Furthermore, Optimism needs to pay charges to Ethereum Mainnet in ETH. How can the OPETH conversion be handled?”
User Massedai stated that “this is really a premature switch to a method that hasn’t began to operate the way Optimism intended,” suggesting the project is searching to supply token value via “ecosystem profitability and never quick moves to pump an expression.”