Will the OP who is only used for governance reappear the tragedy of ENS and UNI again?

This topic is actually a bit big, but I really want to talk about it. Many people criticize the problem of ENS that it has no substantial empowerment and is only used for governance. The previous sharp rise of ENS came from people’s affirmation of protocol products and the competition for ENS governance rights.

The same is true for UNI, because these two DAPPs are good enough – ENS has become a very important part of the Ethereum ecosystem, and Uniswap has only v3 transaction volume in the past 7 days (in the case of bad market conditions) reached 7.58 billion U.S. dollars, and that’s what motivated the whales to buy them in the first place.

Will the OP, who is only used for governance, reproduce the grief of ENS and UNI again?

But what about putting it on the OP?

As a grassroots network, Optimism has different governance logic from DApps. The security of DApps is guaranteed by Ethereum. Governance tokens will be centrally used to participate in the governance of the protocol. As the governance token of the network, OP, while participating in governance, also exists. Participate in the influence space of Optimism Sequence and consensus network operation. But it’s still too early.

Next, let’s talk about how Optimism’s governance is accomplished, and for what purpose.

Let’s start with the conclusion: Optimism has a very high focus on governance. “Impact = Profit” is the most important spirit of the Optimism ecosystem. They hope to achieve the process of “governance – gain influence – ecological user growth – profit”. This means that the purpose of Optimism is to allow the governance rights of OP holders to obtain more ecological profits in the future.

This is a flywheel effect. It will be difficult to rotate in the early stage, but with the development in the later stage, the flywheel will rotate faster and faster. The feature of Optimism is that they are working hard to eliminate the influence of massive token holders such as whales and institutions on governance fairness, and promote the growth of retail participation in the long-term governance work and network expansion.

Let’s get to the point: Optimism mentioned at the beginning of “This Governance Will Self Destruct” that The Optimism Collective is a large-scale governance experiment, hoping to reduce the influence of the giant whales in governance and fund public products to Building a more unified Internet, Optimism’s vision is a network “built for, and governed by, its citizens”.

How is it done? (The reference material in the following part comes from the OP collection process)

Working Constitution和Bedrock Constitution

Regarding constitution-making, the original constitution was called the Progressive “Working Constitution”, and its regulations were scalable and would be updated as future challenges changed. Practice is the only criterion for testing truth, and the Optimism Council will build on a series of governance experiments to gain insight into ecological balance and power dynamics, allow for change, and encourage practice. After a maximum of four years of experimentation, Optimism will launch the Bedrock Constitution, which will serve as the basis for future governance.

That is to say, the Working Constitution will write a guiding Bedrock Constitution within four years of practice, based on real situations.

It is worth mentioning that Optimism’s current Rollup architecture is also called Bedrock, which is one of the development stages of the Optimism network. It was upgraded in May this year. The purpose of Bedrock’s upgrade is to greatly reduce transaction fees and increase network throughput.

OP holders and OP citizens coexist as equals

One chain and two governance (Token House and Citizens House), the main purpose is to balance the short-term incentives and long-term vision of Optimism. In fact, the governance in this regard can refer to Curve’s governance structure – by strongly binding governance power to LP revenue, governance power is strongly bound to protocol revenue sharing and token locking.

Why is everyone playing the ve set now? Because this model can combine short-term incentives with long-term vision. Although it cannot solve the fundamental pain point of decentralized governance, it is also a good solution.

The figure below is easy to understand. Optimism divides the protocol governance into two sections, Token House and Citizens House. My understanding is that the holders in the Token House are fluid, and the citizenship rights granted by the Citizens House are fixed. Token House will make decisions on the economy (inflation rate), protocol upgrades, and the use of treasury funds through votes by token holders.

Citizens House (made up of people who have been entrusted with citizenship) is responsible for allocating retroactive public goods funds, which will give citizens more rights in the future. Network parameters and granting citizenship are decided by Token House and Citizens House.

Will the OP, who is only used for governance, reproduce the grief of ENS and UNI again?

Optimism Ecological Steward: Optimism Foundation

The Optimism Foundation’s influence on Optimism will spread out over time. The main functions are:

Take the lead at the beginning of governance;

Allocate treasury assets to fund public goods, incentivize participants in the Optimism ecosystem, and promote the development of Optimism;

Amend the constitution (mentioned in point 1);

If the Optimism Foundation directors are not doing well enough, Token House can remove them, or veto their constitutional changes if the changes affect the interests of OP holders.

Finally, it is worth mentioning that OP holders can entrust others to help them participate in governance, which is a normal thing. But I noticed that it labels delegates, for example if we are interested in “DAOs”, we can click and choose someone with influence or experience in the DAO field as our voting agent. That way we can easily elect like-minded people, voters – MPs – House of Representatives.

Will the OP, who is only used for governance, reproduce the grief of ENS and UNI again?

Finally, returning to the conclusion mentioned earlier, the purpose of Optimism is to reduce the influence of giant whales on governance through the joint governance of Token House and Citizens House, that is, the control of giant whales over protocols or networks. Optimism intends to increase the recognition of governance rights by OP holding retail investors by eliminating such effects.

Finally, although the OP token has not performed well, the attempt made by Optimism is still worthy of our consideration and reference. However, the problems shown by the Optimism team during the airdrop claim period also require our attention. In the words of Mr. Liu Feng: “The OP team is very experienced in addition to PUA investors and developers, and everything they do is amateurish like elementary school students.” .

Will the OP, who is only used for governance, reproduce the grief of ENS and UNI again?

Posted by:CoinYuppie,Reprinted with attribution to:https://coinyuppie.com/will-the-op-who-is-only-used-for-governance-reappear-the-tragedy-of-ens-and-uni-again/
Coinyuppie is an open information publishing platform, all information provided is not related to the views and positions of coinyuppie, and does not constitute any investment and financial advice. Users are expected to carefully screen and prevent risks.

Like (0)
Donate Buy me a coffee Buy me a coffee
Previous 2022-06-04 23:00
Next 2022-06-05 09:55

Related articles