⚖️ ETCMCv2 Position on Olympia
ECIPs 1111–1119
A measured review of the proposed Olympia treasury and governance changes to the Ethereum Classic protocol.
🧭 Introduction
The Olympia proposal covers ECIPs 1111 through 1119 and introduces a series of interconnected changes to the Ethereum Classic protocol. At its core, it proposes the creation of a protocol-level treasury funded by redirecting a portion of transaction fees, along with governance mechanisms to control the distribution of those funds.
These are significant changes that go beyond routine technical improvements. They alter the fundamental economic model of Ethereum Classic and introduce new governance structures at the base layer. As active builders in the ETC ecosystem, we believe this warrants careful and transparent public discussion.
⚖️ Our Position
ETCMCv2 remains neutral but cautious on the Olympia proposal. We genuinely support ecosystem growth, developer funding, and long-term sustainability. These are goals we share. However, we believe that protocol-level changes of this scope require a high bar of evidence, broad community consensus, and clear safeguards against centralisation.
At this stage, we have significant open questions and reservations. We are not prepared to endorse Olympia as currently described, and we encourage the wider community to engage critically and independently before any implementation moves forward.
🔍 Key Considerations
Core ETC Principles
Ethereum Classic was built on the principles of immutability, decentralisation, and neutrality. Any proposal touching the base protocol should be evaluated against these foundations, not in conflict with them.
Fee Redirection & Economic Change
Redirecting transaction fees to a protocol treasury is a fundamental change to ETC's economic model. The long-term implications for miners, users, and network incentives need to be thoroughly modelled and understood before any deployment.
Governance-Based Allocation
Moving from algorithmically-determined rewards to governance-based fund allocation changes a core property of the network: its neutrality. Governance systems, however well-intentioned, introduce human discretion and with it the potential for capture or bias.
Centralisation Risk
The degree of decentralisation in Olympia's governance design remains a key concern. Depending on how voting power, treasury control, and administrative roles are structured, there is a risk of concentrating influence in a small number of actors.
Permissionless Ecosystem
Reports of potential allowlists, identity verification requirements, or restricted minting within the proposal raise concern. A permissionless network should remain open to all participants without gatekeeping at the protocol level.
Protocol Simplicity
Adding complex governance logic to the base layer increases the attack surface and maintenance burden of the protocol. Simpler, more auditable systems have historically proven more resilient in the long run.
🛠️ Technical & Governance Considerations
Several aspects of the Olympia proposal remain unclear or unresolved at the time of writing:
- The governance structure and treasury control mechanisms are not yet fully specified or independently reviewed.
- Who has final say over fund allocation, parameter changes, and upgrades remains an open question.
- There is potential for external dependencies or regulatory exposure introduced by on-chain identity or allowlist mechanisms.
- Transparency and auditability at the protocol layer are non-negotiable; complexity should be minimised, not added.
- The path from proposal to activation lacks the level of broad consensus typically expected for foundational protocol changes in ETC.
🤝 ETCMCv2 Perspective
ETCMCv2 is an active participant in the Ethereum Classic ecosystem. We build and maintain infrastructure, run nodes, develop tooling, and invest in the long-term health of the network. Our perspective comes from that on-the-ground experience, not from the sidelines.
We are focused on real-world utility, sustainable tokenomics, and governance models that minimise central control. The solutions we prefer preserve the permissionless, neutral character of ETC while still enabling growth and innovation.
At this stage, we have reservations about whether Olympia, as currently described, aligns with those principles. Sustainable ecosystem funding is a legitimate challenge and we are not dismissing that. But the mechanism being proposed carries risks that we believe have not been adequately addressed.
💬 Community & Open Discussion
Major protocol changes should not be rushed. The Ethereum Classic community has always valued deliberate, consensus-driven decision-making, and that standard should apply here. We encourage every participant to engage with this proposal independently: miners, developers, node operators, holders, and builders alike.
Read the ECIPs directly. Ask questions. Seek out multiple perspectives. The strength of any protocol upgrade lies in the quality of the process behind it.
🔗 External Resources
We encourage independent research. Below is a community resource relevant to this discussion:
nolympia.dev
A community-created initiative expressing opposition to Olympia, including a public petition. This site represents the views of community members who have concerns about the proposal.
Note: This is not an official Olympia website or proposal source. It represents one perspective in an ongoing community debate.
We also encourage you to read the official ECIPs (1111–1119) directly on the ECIP repository, follow discussions in the Ethereum Classic community forums, and form your own informed view.
Our Commitment
ETCMCv2 remains committed to Ethereum Classic's foundational values: immutability, decentralisation, and a permissionless network for everyone. We will continue monitoring developments around Olympia and the broader ECIP process. As clarity emerges and community consensus develops, we will update our position accordingly. Our goal is to make sure progress is made carefully, transparently, and in alignment with what makes Ethereum Classic valuable.