Your edited post reads better than the initial temper tantrum. Nevertheless I would ask you politely to not speak on my behalf. If you think I hate Synapse you are flattering yourselves. I simply do not trust it anymore, and I think the promise of all that money corrupted what was an inspiring vision over how the IC governance should work.
You even did the math in the forum post that you co-authored with David.
The potential to raise funds that could be put to a productive use is enormous given how valuable the NNS is ($1.57 billion worth of ICP staked at current value). The proposal to redirect ICP from non-voting neurons could in theory place 1M ICP a month into a NNS treasury without increasing the overall pre-set inflation rate of ICP (10% going down to 5% over 10 years). 1M ICP a month is $6M a month. That’s a lot of money!
That is a lot of money indeed and that is exactly why people don’t see this temp check proposal as casual. Cause it’s not YOUR money. It belongs to the network. The network is now reacting to your proposal to take it away. I think the right reaction from someone that cares about governance would be to listen with more empathy.
So you see, Synapse’s voting power and the state of the IC governance is not what I have an issue with. I have repeatedly and patiently explained what I have a issue with: minting other people’s rewards to fund a centralized organization and its operations. And you and various other Synapse member have defended this funding mechanism and continued to advocate for it. So we are at a point where our views are very much opposed. Why do you find it an insult if I don’t trust you or Synapse anymore? After all, blockchain networks have been built around the concept that we can’t trust each other when it comes to valuable assets, so we need a trustless environment.
And because I hope this to be the last comment I leave on this forum post, I will explain here again why this doesn’t make sense to me(I’ve already tried to cover this both on distrikt and twitter.)
The concept of “abandoned ICP” is a huge red flag. If the network doesn’t find the act of staking without voting valuable it should stop rewarding. Period. If it does end up minting those rewards then it must mean it actually finds the non-voting neuron valuable and that ICP belongs to the neuron whose stake generated the minting of the reward.
Otherwise the system becomes illogical and unfair. Imagine you’re a newcomer looking to understand why ICP mints rewards in relation to the staked ICP in a locked neuron…but it keeps it for itself and its treasury. We are talking about creating a dangerous precedent.
Has anyone even bothered to stop and think over the legal implications of such an action? Was a legal advisor consulted?
I would like to invite you to review the 2-3 comments I left on this forum post and you will see the issues I’ve raised have nothing to fo with your comments.
They are as follows:
-abandoned icp and using it for anything but its intended purpose
-dfinity’s process of decision-making when it comes to voting on proposals such as these. Which to be frank @diegop I am still not clear if Dfinity considered the links presented in the temp check proposal as being part of the proposal.
@wpb I hope that brings more clarity and stops speculation about what exactly I am so bothered about and nonsense regarding “hate”.
Although it seems that no matter how clearly I try to communicate you change the subject into whatever makes you look more like a victim. This is also part of why we have trust issues atm. My hope is that eventually this lack of trust between us will be mended.