I understand where you’re coming from Wenzel, but you should also try to recognise the state of affairs that led to this. Many in this community, including yourself, are far too quick to discount many kinds of discussion that have the potential to do damage to IC confidence. This leads to valid concerns being ignored unless somebody with real influence starts making a racket.
Anyone who takes the IC’s long term potential seriously should be concerned about the intentional opacity of numerous processes and procedures as they stand today. You should also note that there’s still a lot that needs to be done in this respect, which is going to require constant push given the conflicting interests that are at play.
Regarding Node Providers: I spent months raising concerns about Node Provider onboarding practices, and IC Target Topology enforcement weaknesses (completely undermining the decentralisation coefficients), and was consistently palmed off or ignored, despite:
- it being evident that there are interdependent / duplicated NPs that undermine IC Target Topology assumptions
- it being clear that reviewers aren’t asking pertinent questions, diligently following a rule book that was never fit for purpose
- it being obvious that something needed to change, but diffusion of responsibility lead to nobody doing anything about it
Regarding SNS Launches: I’ve consistently pushed against the willingness of the community to adopt bad SNSs, and I’ve time and again challenged the points of view of others in the Synapse community who set a low bar for adoption (including yourself).
Regarding Undue Influence in SNS Projects: I’ve been putting months of effort into raising alarm bells and trying to implement mechanisms that address this issue (which has come under significant attack from yourself).
Despite the above, nothing was really being done to address these concerns. Finally, things are starting to change. Why? Because risk-averse, passionate members of the community, with sufficient stake and power, and something real to lose, have realised that the majority of the voting population have been asleep at the wheel. Personally, I can understand why there’s some anger and outrage.
I’d like to add that there are more things that are cause for concern that haven’t even been brought to public attention. You use the term ‘conspiracy theory’ a lot. Please stop doing that, you’re just making people angry. What you don’t appreciate is the very fact that there’s plausible space for such theories is in itself problematic, indicating systems and procedures that lack required robustness or verifiability.
If I had a higher stake in the IC, and if it were my full-time occupation, I’d be putting significantly more time into feeding these discussions. I would try to do so respectfully, but I have to admit that the lesaffaire attitude of many who are in delegated positions of power can make that challenging.
If you want people to stop making a racket, start listening (or just stop talking for a bit), so they don’t have to shout.