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.