0xae65e700…46c0sent to0xb6d1eb1a…dab3·#19,465,431·view on Etherscan
(noun40 voting via agora)
i'm a bit on the other side of L2 voting migration being a high priority. my thinking:
- we're spending around ~18 eth a year on voter gas refunds. it's not a trivial cost (and for daos with smaller treasuries it makes total sense to move to an L2) but as a L1 "peace of mind" tax for now it's not something too much for the dao to bear.
- we're likely NOT going to move our treasury governance contracts entirely to L2 any time soon given the L2s still have decentralization stuff that's not really sorted out (fraud proofs etc).
- then any scheme here at the present moment would likely require some sort of L2 voting & ZK proof generation -> L1 ZK proof verification? tech here is improving rapidly but really a lot of is in flux in terms of how L2 -> L1 state communication should happen in the most trustless fashion.
all of the above leads me to think that we should just pay the ~18 eth cost for another year or two until thing settle down rather than spending a lot of cycles here now.
(ofc the other side of the argument is that we should lead here as a way to stay on the frontier and push the boundaries and run a mandated round as a way to attract more technical talent towards our ecosystem. if that's the argument i would be much more supportive and it's a totally different value proposition. but the "we're wasting eth refunding voter gas" as a cost savings value prop is not compelling to me given the non obvious technical complexity at the present moment)