Defining Arguments and Analysis conditions
A community call will be scheduled for the 2nd week in June regarding this topic.
We should consider if we should or should not join OP’s “Superchain” Registry. This proposal sets us up to evaluate the potential benefits and drawbacks. Below I lay out 3 different approaches to performing an initial evaluation upon which we can see if further, more in depth analysis is warranted.
Identify Core Arguments
First, we MUST identify the core arguments for and against joining the Superchain Registry.
If you have suggestions, please reply with what you think is relevant! For Joining the Superchain Registry:
- Enhanced Security and Shared Resources
- Interoperability
- INCENTIVES
- Brand and Credibility
- OP Voting
Against Joining the Superchain Registry:
- Potential Loss of Autonomy
- Security Trade-offs
- Interoperability Challenges
- Resource Allocation
- Strategic Misalignment
Different Approaches to Argumentation
Next we can consider several approaches to structuring the arguments, each with a different focus or rhetorical strategy:
Approach 1: Cost-Benefit Analysis
- For Joining:
- Enhanced Security: Being part of the Superchain means leveraging collective security measures, reducing individual project risks. The cost savings from shared security infrastructure can be significant; however, I do not think this is a strong argument for.
- Interoperability: Simplifies integration with other projects, saving on development time and costs.
- Incentives: All about that CA$H BABY.
- Brand Credibility:
- OP Voting: We get a say in OP governance?
- Against Joining:
- Loss of Autonomy: The project may incur costs in adjusting to collective decisions that might not align with its vision.
- Security Risks: Unclear
- Interoperability Issues: Maintaining potential integrations and costs and potential delays due to compatibility issues.
- Resource Competition: Engineering resources being spent on Superchain related stuff might lead to inefficiencies and delays.
- Strategic Misalignment: Diverging goals can lead to long-term strategic costs. We are not aiming for ‘decentralization’ or devolving governance to some token-based voting process necessarily.
Approach 2: Strategic Alignment and Vision
- For Joining:
- Vision Alignment: If the project’s vision aligns with the OP’s goals, joining can amplify its impact.
- Innovation Potential: Access to cutting-edge technology and collective innovation efforts.
- Community and Ecosystem: Being part of a larger ecosystem can drive community support and collaborative growth.
- Long-term Growth: OP’ rollups can potentially feed into our solutions which would support long-term project expansion.
- Enhanced Governance: Collective governance can ensure robust, well-informed decision-making processes.
- Against Joining:
- Vision Misalignment: Potential conflicts if the project’s goals diverge from the OP’s objectives.
- Innovation Constraints: Collective governance might slow down the project’s ability to innovate independently.
- Ecosystem Dependency: Over-reliance on the OP ecosystem can be risky if the ecosystem faces challenges.
- Scalability Compromises: Shared scalability solutions might not meet the our unique needs.
- Governance Conflicts: Disagreements in collective governance can create friction and slow down progress.
Approach 3: Risk and Reward Analysis
- For Joining:
- Risk Mitigation: Shared security and governance reduce individual project risks.
- Resource Efficiency: Pooling resources can lead to cost savings and operational efficiencies.
- Network Effects: Enhanced interoperability can drive user adoption and network growth. This can potentially be a strong argument.
- Scalability Solutions: Access to advanced scalability technologies reduces technical risk.
- Against Joining:
- Autonomy Risk: Loss of control over certain project decisions can be risky if the collective governance makes unfavorable decisions.
- Security Dependency: Inability to modify certain parameters may cause security issues not yet forseen.
- Integration Risks: Potential technical challenges and delays in integrating with the Superchain.
- Resource Allocation Risks: Competition for shared resources can lead to inefficiencies.
- Strategic Risks: Misalignment with the OP’s strategic direction can hinder project growth.
Superchain OP Token Benefits
This is NOT exhaustive list: there may be other conditions or benefits not listed below, because finding information for this is somewhat of a task.
A total of 10M OP would be reserved for delegation across as many as 10 OP Chains, using idle tokens in the Governance Fund. Delegations will be made throughout Season 5 and 6, as additional Chains qualify.
OP Chain Qualification Criteria:
-
OP Chains are defined as Layer 2 blockchains that:
- Run the governance-approved release of the OP Stack
- Have been approved via Token House governance to join the Superchain, which requires a commitment to:
- Uphold the Law of Chains
- Upgrades based on decisions by Optimism’s governance
- Contribution of sequencer revenue back to the Collective
*More details on the process for governance to approve OP Chains, and/or their sequencers, will be provided before the start of Season 5
-
The first 10 OP Chains (as defined above) to exceed 10 ETH in revenue contributed to the Collective in each of the previous 2 months are eligible for this program
-
OP Mainnet will not be eligible for this program
Commentary on OP Governance stipulations that are non-technical
-
Law of Chains is entirely a social contract: we do not enter into an argreement legally with the OP Foundation. Thus it is entirely un-enforcable legally speaking.
-
The argument point regarding having voting in OP governance may be mute, as specified here:
“Voting caps, based on % of votable supply, may be applied when appropriate. These caps may consider planned voting participation and delegation.” – Onboarding OP Chains to Optimism Governance - Metagovernance - Optimism Collective
- This section may be an issue depending on how you read it:
Sec. 7 – Users First: User Protections are prioritized. If there is a conflict between the protections afforded to Users and those afforded to Chain Governors or Servicers, User Protections predominate.
Community Poll
Select up to TWO options. This poll is used to provide more context and help refine the actual formal proposal for joining. Again if you have an idea or have more questions post a reply in this thread.
- Yes - Cost-Benefit Analysis
- No - Cost-Benefit Analysis
- Yes - Risk and Reward Analysis
- No - Risk and Reward Analysis
- More Data is needed regarding Potential Rewards
- Abstain
- Kick the can