Financial Sustainability
Clear Operations Structure
Bolstered Accountability
Dedicated Support for Scroll-native teams
Organization > Decentralization
I am fully supportive of the renewed vision for Scroll Governance 2.0. The co-creation workshops were an effective exercise in collaboratively shaping the future direction of Scroll governance and the Scroll ecosystem. While this proposal captures only a portion of those discussions, it clearly reflects the underlying principles and strategic intent that emerged from the CC Cycle. And despite community concerns and some FUD around the pause of the DAO, what has emerged after the CC Cycle is a clear and focused vision and north star for all Scroll stakeholders to rally around.
I strongly support this direction and look forward to continuing to champion Scroll’s growth and its mission to scale Ethereum.
Happy New Year! Thanks for the proposal!
I’m going to vote FOR.
I’ll start with the positives and close with what I consider to be the weaker point of the current design.
First of all, it’s refreshing to finally see an initiative that challenges the ecosystem’s inward-looking tendencies and gives Scroll a push toward more structured governance.
I also strongly agree with the stacked SCR component, since it:
a)reduces circulating SCR supply and therefore helps stabilize downward price pressure,
b)doesn’t harm the economic incentive layer for delegates,
c)acts as a small but meaningful proof of belief toward the Scroll ecosystem
Also, the proposal brings transparency to the budget, even if there is no strict mathematical explanation for how the budget figure was derived.
Additionally, I like the concept of a “verified delegate” role, although this is precisely where my main concern lies.
While the criteria for becoming a verified delegate remain somewhat undefined, a point even acknowledged by the proposer, the current implementation seems to introduce an unintentionally strict barrier (e.g., requiring delegation from 10 unique addresses). Such constraints may not be fully aligned with the current maturity of the Scroll governance environment, which still requires mechanisms like an auto-abstain wallet to bootstrap participation.
Since criticism alone is not productive, and given that the process is still open to iteration, I’d like to offer a constructive alternative:
Introduce a scoring-based evaluation list for delegates, where verified delegates (with initially lighter criteria) can receive proportional compensation based on their assigned score. This would allow for incentives, accountability, and ecosystem alignment without prematurely gatekeeping participation.
If this direction resonates with the community, I’m willing to design and deliver the scoring framework pro bono. If the reactions show that the majority is in favor of such a delegate participation/contribution evaluation system, I will proceed with a full presentation of the system, gather feedback, and finalize its structure before transitioning to the new framework, so that it can accompany us from the beginning of this ‘new era’.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @kaereste and @Manugotsuka, and it’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.
We voted FOR.
This proposal marks a clear shift in how Scroll DAO approaches governance, with a greater emphasis on execution, ownership, and accountability compared to last year.
The shift towards committee-based execution and a clearer separation of duties appears to be aimed at addressing issues that became apparent over the past year, particularly with regard to unequal participation and diffusion of accountability. Whether this structure delivers better results will depend largely on how performance is monitored and how transparency in reporting is maintained once the system is up and running.
That said, one aspect that stands out is the level of discretion initially retained by the Scroll Foundation, including the selection of early delegates and committee members, as well as veto authority. While this may help with coordination and speed in the short term, it places more weight on how clearly the transition toward elections, rotation, and reduced Foundation involvement is defined and communicated.
The introduction of a fixed budget framework, explicit execution ownership, and outcome-based reporting provides clearer operational guardrails than previous setups. At the same time, it will be important to see how flexible these structures remain if assumptions around capacity or participation change.
