Governance Update: Security Council Transition, Contributor Roles & Operational Adjustments

General
1

Governance Update: Security Council Transition, Contributor Roles & Operational Adjustments

Summary

This post outlines operational adjustments we are proposing over the coming weeks:

  1. We are proposing to dissolve the Security Council and transition protocol control to a Scroll Admin multisig.
  2. Several DAO contributor roles will conclude by April 30, 2026.
  3. The Operations and Accountability committees will shift to a reduced capacity, aligned with current activity levels.

The Security Council transition is a Scroll-led proposal that will require the council’s support to execute. Contributor role adjustments were discussed directly with the Operations and Accountability committees, who were fully involved in the process. The Scroll Foundation is aligned on all changes.

Security Council Transition

After evaluating the Security Council’s cost relative to its actual usage over the past quarters, we believe continuation is no longer justified. We are proposing to transition protocol admin control from the Security Council to a Scroll Admin multisig, with the transition targeted over the next ten days pending the council’s support.

We recognize the security considerations this transition carries and have assessed them thoroughly. Scroll has a proven track record of sustaining a large-scale, quality protocol, and we will continue to operate with the highest security standards. The protocol’s infrastructure is mature, thoroughly audited, and actively maintained by the engineering team that built it.

We want to thank the Security Council members for their service and commitment to Scroll. Their dedication to safeguarding the protocol has been a meaningful part of Scroll’s journey, and we are grateful for their contributions.

Security councils play an important role in the maturity and resilience of any protocol. This proposal is not a departure from that belief. We will be working with key stakeholders to identify a new security council structure better adapted to current market conditions — one that maintains the oversight value while aligning with Scroll’s operational reality.

The proposed new Scroll Admin multisig:

0xcca54B0916Cee2186b47E9709BEdcb7041A8F761

The following contracts would transition admin control:

  • ScrollOwner contract
  • AgoraGovernor contract
  • Timelock contracts

All contract changes will be executed transparently and verifiable on-chain.

Contributor Role Adjustments

After discussions with the Operations and Accountability committees — with their full involvement and understanding — we are adjusting contributor roles to align with the current pace of activity from the Scroll Foundation.

The following roles will conclude by April 30, 2026:

  • Marketing Operations
  • Program Coordination
  • Accountability Lead
  • Accountability Operator

A Facilitator role (SEED LATAM) will remain active through Q2 2026, responsible for managing delegate operations, advancing the governance agenda, and managing DAO allocation budget.

With these adjustments, the Operations and Accountability committees will shift to a reduced operational capacity, aligned with current demand. The structures remain in place and can scale back up as activity increases.

The DAO Moving Forward

Scroll DAO continues to operate and evolve. Our focus going forward is on empowering delegates and creating meaningful impact for Scroll through continued DCP proposals. The delegate architecture, governance framework, and allocation processes built over the past year are active and functioning.

The DAO is adjusting its operational footprint to match the current priorities of the Scroll Foundation — not stepping back from governance. As Scroll App and the broader product suite grow, we expect governance activity to grow with it, and the DAO will be ready.

We encourage delegates to continue bringing forward DCP proposals. The process is open, the framework is in place, and meaningful contributions will drive Scroll forward.

Questions welcome below.

— Juan

2 Likes
2

Thanks for sharing this @Juansito.

What this reads like (to me), at a higher level, is not just an operational adjustment, but a shift in identity from “credible neutral L2 infrastructure” toward “product-driven platform with its own stack”

And that’s not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, optimizing for product adoption, revenue and tighter execution is a very understandable path. But is that the case?

The tension is not in the mechanics (Security Council, roles, multisig).
It’s in what this implies:

Is Scroll still aiming to be neutral infrastructure… or is it becoming a vertically integrated product?

Because those are different games. One optimizes for credibility, neutrality, and long-term guarantees. The other optimizes for speed, coherence, and user growth. Trying to do both without naming the trade-off can create confusion externally.

The risk is narrative ambiguity. Builders and partners don’t know what kind of system they are plugging into. And that uncertainty tends to get priced in where teams choose to build, how much capital commits and how seriously governance is taken.

4 Likes
Call Links 2026
3

Thanks for sharing this proposal and the broader context behind these operational adjustments.

We would like to acknowledge the rationale behind aligning contributor and committee roles with the current pace of activity. The decision to reduce operational overhead where it is underutilized is sensible, and it’s encouraging to see that these changes were made in coordination with the relevant committees. This kind of cost discipline and adaptability is important for long-term sustainability.

We would, however, like to highlight a few points:
1. While we understand the cost vs. usage argument, removing the Security Council represents a meaningful shift in the protocol’s security and governance model. Transitioning these responsibilities to a single multisig, especially one that appears to be Scroll-controlled, introduces potential centralization risk. It would be helpful to understand why a leaner operating cost or a restructured Security Council was not considered as an alternative?

2. Given the elevated responsibility of the Scroll Admin multisig, clarity on its composition is essential.

Could you please share:
• Who the signers of the multisig are (individuals or entities)
• The signing threshold (e.g., M-of-N)
• Whether any signers are independent from the Scroll Foundation

Without this information, it is difficult to properly assess the risk profile of this transition.

3. This proposal introduces significant changes to protocol control and governance structure. As such, we would expect this to go through a formal on-chain governance process.

Could you clarify:
• Why this transition is not being proposed as an on-chain vote?
• Whether token holders or delegates will have any formal mechanism to approve or reject this change?
Maintaining credible neutrality in governance processes is critical, especially when changes impact control over core contracts.

4. In the fall, the DAO took a step back, initially creating discouragement toward participation. Then this shifted again. At the beginning of the year we discussed the creation of new roles within the DAO. Now, some roles are being eliminated. All these changes create a sense of uncertainty and fear, which discourages willingness to participate in the ecosystem.

Additionally, these changes reflect rushed and impulsive planning, often made either through absolute or relative centralization. What we are seeing resembles what we already know from TradFi…people struggle to manage power effectively. That’s why as Eureka we strongly believe that DAO-level changes should be decided on by delegates, who must do their job properly and not accept or reject proposals solely based on soft power.

Overall, while we support the move toward operational efficiency on the contributor side, we believe the proposed changes to protocol control warrant deeper scrutiny and additional transparency.

2 Likes
4

Thanks for sharing this update.

There’s not much to add from a delegate’s perspective. Although this is framed as a proposal, it seems the decisions have already been made. Or is there supposed to be a vote?

  • I understand the reasoning behind disbanding the Security Council from a financial perspective. Still, this is a significant step back at the protocol level, not only in terms of security, but also decentralization.
  • As @Eureka pointed out, I would expect more clarity on the plan going forward.

Regarding the second decision on Contributor Role Adjustments, does this effectively mean cutting 4 out of 5 contributor roles? This represents a loss of effort and expertise, and it more of less puts the DAO into a dormant state.

I also have a hard time with the description of the DAO in the future, even though it’s not coming as a surprise. There is no “governance on demand” model. Have to agree with @alexsotodigital that there appears to be a misalignment between “surviving” these hard times and preserving some DAO structure.

6 Likes