Vitalik’s Cheer for Optimism’s Governance Shift

Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin recently expressed his support for Optimism’s innovative governance framework. Notably, his praise illuminated the introduction of the OP token as a means for gas fees, highlighting a shift towards more inclusive representation of non-token holder interests. This is a big leap in a space where typically, wealth and token holdings have dictated the rules of the game.

A Closer Look at the Optimism Collective

Optimism has launched its much-anticipated governance project, known as the Optimism Collective. The first round of the OP token airdrop went live on Wednesday, marking the official start of this new era in governance. The framework consists of two primary factions:

• Token House: This group comprises OP governance token holders who are primarily interested in protocol incentives, treasury funds, and protocol upgrades.
• Citizens’ House: This is slightly more revolutionary, featuring owners of “soul-bound” non-transferrable citizenship NFTs, advocating for broader public interests.

What Buterin Thinks About OP Gas Fees

While it’s a bit foggy whether Buterin is all-in for the proposal regarding utilizing the OP token for gas fees, he did express his satisfaction that the topic was being discussed. He tweeted, “This is a great example of why I’m so proud of @optimismPBC for adding non-token governance (the Citizen House).” This sentiment reflects his belief that optimizing the governance structure for non-holders is crucial for longevity.

“Optimism explicitly has goals *other* than just ‘make OP go up’… long-term is with explicit representation of non-token-holder interests.” – Vitalik Buterin

The Governance Dynamics

The division of responsibilities between the Token House and Citizens’ House is pivotal. Not only do these bodies have distinct roles, but they also collaboratively oversee governance decisions, particularly in areas like network parameters and granting new citizenships. Buterin appreciates the collaborative efforts in ensuring that governance reflects the broader community, avoiding the pitfalls of wealth concentration.

The Community Weighs In

However, the community’s response to the OP gas fee proposal is as mixed as a bag of trail mix. While some members champion the idea as a way to enhance the utility of the OP token, others have voiced strong opposition. Concerns include:

• Kethic: Argues that burning voting power in governance seems counterproductive.
• Vrede: Questions the loss of EVM equivalence, highlighting the necessity to pay fees on Ethereum Mainnet in ETH and wondering about the OP-ETH conversion.
• Massedai: Warns that this change might be premature, arguing for a strategy focused on sustainable ecosystem profitability rather than short-term price pumps.

As the Optimism community navigates these discussions, the overarching question remains: can we truly establish governance models that embrace the interests of all, not just the wealthiest voices? Only time will tell.