The Optimism Collective has pioneered governance experiments through its unique two-house model that balances token holder interests with community-driven legitimacy. I also had the chance to work with the foundation to pionner a new approach to governance: Deliberative governance (see: https://gov.optimism.io/t/when-is-deliberation-useful-for-optimism-governance/9142). This is why I focus in this paper on a case of governance in the optimism ecosystem.

In June 2025, the Collective considered and ratified the Season 8 Intent Ratification proposal, a decision that set the strategic priorities for the coming governance season. This paper analyzes the decision using frameworks from Week 1, including the governance triangle, legitimacy spectrum, and key governance tradeoffs. The case highlights how DAOs coordinate at scale while striving for legitimacy and efficiency in decentralized decision-making. I think the Optimism collective is a positive example of such approach, while still having limitations.

The Season 8 Intent Ratification proposal asked Optimism’s governance bodies to formally approve the core objectives that would guide the DAO’s programs, grants, and funding allocations. The proposal emerged after community discussion and refinement, reflecting a maturing effort to align strategic priorities in advance rather than reacting proposal by proposal. Ratifying the intents is a critical piece of the OP collective approach to governance to provide clarity and reduce governance fatigue by channeling decision-making into a structured path. The decision directly involved both governance houses: the Token House, representing financial stakeholders through delegated OP tokens, and the Citizens’ House, representing identity-based contributors focused on ecosystem legitimacy. As a disclaimer and important information: I am a Citizen since season 8 and hence participating in this ratification process.

By June 2025, the proposal was clear and formalized enough to go to ratification. It was also inline with the timing of the Collective structured in Governance Seasons.

The Intent ratification process exemplifies Optimism’s hybrid model, combining representative governance (delegates in the Token House) with participatory legitimacy (soulbound citizens in the Citizens’ House). The process unfolded through proposal drafting, forum discussions, and a formal vote on Atlas. Applying the governance triangle, Optimism prioritized participation and decentralization by engaging two houses, while accepting slower decision speed as a tradeoff. On the legitimacy spectrum, the decision drew from stake-based legitimacy (Token House), participatory legitimacy (Citizens’ House), and rational legitimacy (strategic reasoning documented in the proposal). The underlying infrastructure included delegation contracts, Snapshot-style voting, and transparent recording of votes. This layered process ensured that strategic ratification was not only technically sound but also socially validated, reinforcing Optimism’s broader commitment to legitimacy.

Results can be found there: https://vote.optimism.io/proposals/77379844029098348047245706083901850540159595802129942495264753179306805786028

Stakeholder engagement was central to this ratification. The Token House included delegates with financial stakes, while the Citizens’ House amplified the voices of ecosystem builders, contributors and community members. All could  engage through governance forums, Atlas, and Discord channels. This multi-channel approach promoted transparency and allowed stakeholders to deliberate before voting. The dual-house system ensured that both economic and social legitimacy were represented, creating a richer decision-making process.

However, the reliance on the token house and some lack of structured deliberation process pose challenges. Less active contributors may find the process difficult to follow, and balancing the priorities of financial and contributor constituencies requires ongoing calibration. Engagement quality remained high within the core active community members, with stakeholders voicing positions publicly and votes clearly documented on-chain. But as in many other DAOs context, such an approach was not able to get the voice of the silent majority of token holders.

The proposal passed successfully, setting the strategic direction for Season 8. Ratified intents now serve as guiding principles for treasury allocations, RetroPGF cycles, and governance experiments during the season. The outcome streamlined governance by aligning stakeholders around a shared agenda, reducing redundancy in proposal evaluation. Implementation occurs indirectly, as subsequent budget proposals and program designs reference the ratified intents.

This is very efficient but introduces a potential side effect: if intents are poorly defined or overly broad, downstream decision-making could become ambiguous.

Also, there is less space for “out-of-the-box” and very innovative ideas. This may slow down innovation which is crucial in Web3 to keep pace.

Nevertheless, the ratification provided a crucial framework for coordination in a large, decentralized ecosystem.

The Season 8 ratification provides actionable insights for Scroll DAO as it develops governance:

First, strategic clarity through intent ratification can reduce governance fatigue by anchoring proposals to shared priorities. It gives a midterm obejctive and mission to a large set of actors.

Second, multiple legitimacy channels—financial stakeholders and community contributors—help balance economic power with participatory legitimacy, a model Scroll may adapt by distinguishing between treasury and ecosystem-building decisions.

Third: The set of active participants in such a setting is limited and the silent majority is not really on board. For Scroll, progressive decentralization should consider when and how to introduce new legitimacy mechanisms and strong deliberative approache, based on sortition.

The Optimism Collective’s Season 8 Intent Ratification illustrates how DAOs can navigate complexity by combining representative and participatory legitimacy within a hybrid framework. The decision balanced inclusivity, decentralization, and strategic alignment, setting the stage for more effective governance in subsequent proposals even if the scope of participants was rather narrow.

For Scroll, the case demonstrates that strong governance requires both process design and tradeoff awareness, ensuring that decentralized coordination scales without losing legitimacy or efficiency.