Vitalik Buterin, co-founder of leading altcoin Ethereum, supported Optimism’s new governance structure, stating that proposals such as the use of the OP token for gas fees demonstrate ‘clear representation of the interests of non-token holders’.
Vitalik Buterin explains why he is proud of Optimism
Leading altcoin Ethereum Layer-2 scaling solution, long-awaited OP token airdrop on Wednesday as part of new governance project ‘Optimism Collective’ distributed the first round of flour. Optimism’s new governance structure includes two parties called ‘Token House’ and ‘Citizens House’. The first consists of OP governance token holders and the second consists of “spirit-bound” non-transferable citizenship, Non Fungible Token (NFT) holders. While it’s unclear whether
Vitalik Buterin fully agrees with or is content with the OP’s proposal to use the OP governance token for gas fees from Thursday, he noted on Twitter on Friday. :
This is a great example of why I’m so proud of OptimismPBC for adding Non Toke Governance (Citizens House). Optimism clearly has goals other than ‘raising the OP’ and the only way to do that in the long run is by a clear representation of the interests of non-token holders.
What does Buterin propose regarding cryptocurrency voting?
As we reported on Kriptokoin.com, the two parties mostly oversee different targets with Token House tasked with project incentives, protocol upgrades and treasury funds, while Citizens House focuses on retroactive public goods financing.
The duo also shares management decisions regarding network parameters and granting new citizenships to Citizens House; that’s something Buterin appreciates in this situation. According to Optimism, the number of citizens in Citizens House will increase over time, and the mechanism for distributing citizenship will be determined by the Foundation with input from Token House.
Vitalik Buterin, several times in the crypto industry in decentralized finance (DeFi) or decentralized governance (DeGov) as whale governance dominating the voting process risks owning token holders. ) summarized his thoughts on the need to “go beyond cryptocurrency voting.” Buterin argues that this can often lead to a short-term focus of whales approving offers aimed at increasing the price of certain assets.
How did the community respond to the proposal from the leading altcoin founder?
Such a method can result in small holders and platform users having no say in the DeGov process, or what Buterin describes as a lack of non-token-hodler interests. As for the OP gas fee proposal, which was floated for ideas and feedback on the Optimism governance forum yesterday, sentiment among the community seems mixed.
While many offered concise and sharp agreement comments stating it would benefit the OP more overall, many took the time to make it clear why they were against the idea. One member, Kethic, said, “I don’t think it’s a good idea. Burning voting power in a governance structure feels counterproductive,” said user Vrede:
is the Optimism EVM equivalent. Accepting OP tokens as gas means giving up the EVM equivalent. Also, Optimism has to pay fees to Ethereum Mainnet in ETH. How will the OPETH conversion be handled? User Massedai
said, “This is an early change to a system that has not yet started working as Optimism intended,” and that the project is trying to deliver token value through “ecosystem profitability, not quick moves to try and pump a token.” suggested.
17519
