Hey there;
I appreciate @Jane stepping in to rebuild communication between the Foundation and the DAO, and I want to share some candid feedback precisely because I trust her and believe this conversation is worth having.
Before re-engaging more actively, I think I need much more clarity on what “governance” is expected to mean in this new version of Scroll.
Scroll has changed direction quite significantly over the past year, and from a delegate perspective it has often felt like we were left waiting to be involved while the direction of the project was being decided elsewhere. I understand that teams need to adapt, especially in a difficult market, but that history makes it harder to simply assume that the current governance structure or strategy will remain stable.
In particular, I would appreciate clarity on a few things:
-
If Scroll becomes a private, application-specific network, what decisions will actually remain within the scope of the DAO?
-
What is the expected role and mandate of delegates in that model?
-
Where will the DAO have meaningful authority rather than simply providing feedback to decisions made by the Foundation/team?
-
What incentives or responsibilities will exist for delegates and contributors who choose to invest significant time again?
-
More broadly, what mechanisms will help rebuild trust and reduce the risk of governance becoming mostly symbolic?
I’m not asking these questions because I think the new direction is necessarily wrong. But for me, meaningful participation would require a clearer understanding of where authority actually sits, what is genuinely open for co-design, and what commitment the Foundation is making to the DAO in this next phase.
One practical note: 12:00 UTC is 6am for me, so I’m unlikely to participate regularly at that time. 
I’d be very interested in contributing asynchronously if there are good channels for that. But again, I’d appreciate it if you could first provide some clarity on the above.
Thanks in advance.