This is a great idea to showcase the power of intents during the migration to Base. Choosing Base is also a wise decision and makes sense. However, I would like to understand the reasoning behind staying on the Optimism Mainnet when migrating to Base would position us for Superchain interoperability and access to all its underlying chains.
From my perspective, there is little conviction left to continue supporting Optimism. It only complicates the user experience and increases the team’s workload. Instead, we should focus on supporting Ethereum for its high security and Base as a cheaper alternative with significant hype, including the potential for a Coinbase listing.
Regarding the following statement:
What if all or the majority of large stakeholders like @enerow choose Ethereum as their staking chain due to its superior security? This would mean that reward distribution would also happen on Ethereum, contradicting the stated goal:
To address this, I propose deploying the token on both Ethereum and Base, allowing governance and staking on both chains. However, reward distribution should happen on Base to ensure lower costs for smaller stakeholders. This approach would also support automatic and real-time (or at least shorter-period) reward distributions, preventing issues similar to the recent ones.
Finally, the requested budget is fair, and I would support future funding requests coming from tokens with high price fluctuations that are currently held in the treasury but do not significantly contribute to treasury diversification, such as $FTM.