EDIT 10/27
I didn’t want to change by original post to be transparent and preserve the factual history of the conversation, but I want to be clear here that it was not my intention to imply anything negative regarding anyone’s character. While we may disagree on ideas, I think Wenzel and David want nothing but the best for the ecosystem. https://twitter.com/IsaacValadez55/status/1585631550711812102?s=20&t=RVIp_CTK4VCIMLDC_fCuNg
I literally sat in a private in-person meeting last Thursday where you & David argued the case for using the NNS to fund a single “DFINITY-like” organization, and every safeguard I brought up was shot down due to a base-less desire for urgency at all costs. That is centralization. Synapse still has 10% voting power, that’s centralization.
“Funding” comes from building value. We don’t need speculators and volunteers running governance, we need value-creating projects running it to protect the foundation of their own infrastructure.
This call for an Ethos isn’t “fairy dust”. My guess is that you are only saying that because it would slow down and likely end up opposing your clear ambition for promoting the creation of a NNS Treasury. I’ll be upfront, that is my goal, because an Ethos is needed specifically needed to protect builders from things like that. Without it, builders will look up after several months of building and realize the network changed around them, instead of simply providing the protocol stability they needed.
The hard push for an NNS Treasury is not for the good of the community, because it’s been pushed despite the active harm its caused to the community. We have builders and good people losing faith in the strength of the token and future of the NNS, and I personally know of at least 3 builders who are leaving the Internet Computer because they believe the existing powers controlling the network are entrenching themselves. Yes we need funding, but we shouldn’t harm the ecosystem by how we push to get it.