Hey @tim, Zhivko from LimeChain here (we used to contribute to Celo development in its early days in 2019).
Been following the CEL2 progress from a far and find this discussion fascinating. The framework you’ve proposed is already extensive enough.
The one thing I would probably double down on in terms of importance is the path to technical decentralisation, even though it’s kind of mentioned in .4 of Ecosystem and Project Alignment.
Optimistic and zk-rollups decentralise in different ways and specific projects have different visions for that. For example, in the OP Superchain ecosystem, sequencers will potentially have to be elected through governance and could potentially participate in shared sequencing for all of the OP ecosystem chains. Two questions that pop up instantly are 1) would Celo node operators be allowed to participate as sequencers and 2) do they have interest in supporting chains other than Celo, assuming shared sequencers. There’s always the option of using the OP stack without participating in the Superchain ecosystem however.
On the other hand, zk-rollups path to decentralisation is different. We’ve outlined a framework for decentralisation of zk-rollups, including tradeoffs for prover and sequencer design choices in Ethresear.ch. It essentially comes down to a free-for-all (on the one side) and elected leader (on the other side) spectrum, however there’s additional complexity considering coupling (or not) of provers and sequencers, allowing forks vs no forks etc.
It’s unlikely for the CEL2 network to launch fully decentralised from day one and some kind of training wheels are to be expected. The path to decentralisation however is important and it predefines the potential role of the current set of Celo node operators.
Will be following the proposals and eventual decision closely, and happy to jam more on the topic if needed 