Oh, I see. Now I’m the conspiracy. I have the audacity to be one of the most active participants in governance in an ecosystem that is fundamentally designed around governance utility in order to achieve decentralization. My bad. Maybe I should just step back and watch the insiders and whales steam roll the community on this one without saying anything.
It’s like you don’t read or understand what you are doing. These proposals are executing on the exact plan that was thoroughly discussed by the community and agreed to by DFINITY and the NNS; a plan that took over a year to scope and finalize. I hate to break it to you, but if you want to ensure the network is safe, you can’t just sit back all fat and happy collecting your massive staking rewards. With great power comes great responsibility. You, and each of the whales who follow your lead, voted for the current node provider decentralization goals. You had your chance to roll up your sleeves and get involved in defining those goals.
Perhaps you should use some of your rewards to engage more actively in these governance processes in a credible way that protects your interests. That’s what the tokenomics is intentionally designed to empower you to do. You can do better than just throwing out conspiracy theories, casting protest votes, and creating drunken nonsense motion proposals. Get involved at a level that makes you more relevant. People listen to you because you are an insider and a whale in this community and you are often funny in how you engage. I would love to see you turn your power and influence into an active contributor on the serious side of ICP governance that would help advance decentralization. If nothing else, you could actually afford to pay a group of developers to actively review proposals and cast informed votes. So far, only DFINITY has been willing to offer grants for this purpose. Why don’t you collaborate with other whales and do the same in order to help protect your interests?
The whole point of the node provider transition that we are going through right now is to improve decentralization of node providers. The plan aims to reduce the max number of Gen1 nodes that any one node provider can own and increase the total number of node providers. That’s exactly what these proposals you are rejecting are doing. In the process it also helps improve the geographic decentralization metrics as well. You can’t get more concentrated than it already was before this 42 node cap was established. Even if every new node provider was colluding with the previous node providers, then we are no different than we were 2 months ago. You still have established no credible evidence that this collusion exists yet though. So until then, the only credible claim that can be made is that we are indeed decentralizing the ownership of node machines.