I’ve tried to engage in good faith here, but I’m about at the end my rope with you. Your arguments are in bad faith and you’re making affirmative statements rooted in some false narrative you have in your head.
In trying to align the IC for maximum utility because I think that will drive value. I’m absolutely considering all participants and considering what keeps them engaged and working for the network. If you are not then you are acting in bad faith and have some delusion that excluding participants makes the network stronger.
The community fund(of which we know very little at this point) is absolutely a valid discussion point for this topic, but layering on socialism and totalitarianism is, again, in bad faith. The community fund, once we know the full extent, is likely the best target here. I’m a big fan of the quadratic funding mechanism put forth by gitcoin and I think it increases optionality, exposure to positive black swans, and gives those with fewer resources but better ideas a leveler playing field to succeed. If the community fund is going to implement something like that then I’m all for it. If it is going to distribute purely on monetary strength I’m less bullish, but it would still be better than nothing.
My personal opinion is that I have far more to gain from incentives going into development for the next couple of years than I do from an increased percentage of rewards. You’re welcome to argue with that point if you can do so from a position of good faith.
It is 100% within the mission of ICDevs.org to promote developers and to work toward providing resources to advance the tools and technologies they have to work with. I’ll not apologize at all for doing so. I am in no way advocating that the ICP should be allocated to the ICDevs organization, although I would assume that we would be helping developers apply and execute against grants from the funds and that would be a successful execution of the mission.
My only interest in whales and their engagement in the network is short-term until the network reaches adequate enough decentralization to not need the financial stability that their passive stake currently provides the network. The actual execution of the IC is not yet equal to the ideal of the IC, and ignoring this point is asking for the experiment to be attacked and destroyed by those seeking solely self-serving profit.
ICDevs.org has almost 100% of our assets in an 8-year staked neuron and demands from our board that 66% of every inflow must go into an 8-year staked neuron. We are 100% aligned with the long-term well-being of the network and to state otherwise is to do so in bad faith.
I’m not a fan of putting words in people’s mouths, but I don’t think I’m crossing a line by saying that almost without exception any #dfinitycore or #activewhale would at worst agree that this issue is worth discussing in good faith to determine why it is/isn’t a good solution and using that data as an input to a new and better solution…and I think you’d be shocked at how many might think it should actually be executed in some form. If you feel you have data or a good faith argument as to why it should be set aside and a different direction taken then please offer it…again in good faith. Your current approach is doing nothing but running valid contributors off who may have the perfect solution for spam vs incentivization with your bad faith and hostile attitude.
To put it another way, your current approach is a net negative to the value of ICP and the IC network and unless you can change the way you engage with others, we’d all be better off if you didn’t contribute. I appreciate your passion and share some of the underlying themes of what you are saying. I’d love to have a good-faith discussion with you.
