I am against this proposal because it cements and augments centralisation. The fundamental problem with Dfinity in the minds of the crypto community at large is its highly centralised nature. The Foundation’s decision to abstain from voting on certain measures is a good step but does not address the basic issue which is that not only are too many coins in too few hands but, crucially, the tokenomics is structured to favour their persistence in the same hands by rewarding them disproportionately. Anything that counters this centralisation is to my mind a good thing even if it inflates supply at a time such as now when the market is in terrible condition. If maturity has to be converted into liquid ICP and sold for tax reasons, so be it. In the long run, it will be a good thing that the ICP flowed to new owners. I am willing to bear the notional loss on my stake during this period.
The second reason I am against the proposal is that it takes insufficient heed of the discussion that happened on this forum, and underlines the opaqueness of Dfinity’s decision-making. Who, precisely, was involved in formulating this proposal? What is the process followed for such proposals? Which tax lawyers, if any, were officially consulted? How certain are we that the IRS will not find a way to tax maturity despite the change proposed? Are there any economists advising Dfinity? Or are cryptographers and programmers making all the decisions? When I look at publicly listed corporations, I can easily understand their hierarchies and practices. After reading literally everything there is in the public domain about Dfinity, I still have little clue how the Foundation actually works.
11 Likes