This topic has been in the back of my mind for quite some time now, and my stance has changed over the past few weeks.
Decentralization is important and the distribution of our token matters significantly. Talking to smaller voters and being a small voter myself, I understand how many users feel like their stance on proposals doesn’t matter when voting power is so centralized between a few entities.
Not only this but there are also regulatory risks with voting power being so centralized. What happens when government agencies make demands of our largest voters? It’s a real risk we must mitigate.
I think we could see more community and voter engagement if we improve our token distribution. Our community and users are ever so vital to our success!
I will support this initiative and will help direct it so that this topic doesn’t get dragged on for many more months/years.
I applaud everyone for all the hard work done on this matter! Especially @allthecolors!
To get this initiative moving forward, I think we need to utilize temperature checks. What does everyone think about me posting a temperature check proposal within the next few days - asking the question “Should Compound retroactively distribute tokens to early users?”
agree with you, maybe 2,3,4,5…but with enough COMP power. We will not pretend not to know who these “individuals” are, it is enough to read a few threads where the interests of users and early investors conflict.
No one needs to be called out, but the question is whether “DAO” is going in the right direction given that venture capital funds control the situation?
Simply to protect their investment they need control and I don’t think they will let it go.
As for articles, shitposts and polls - we need to understand that this is marketing content (fairy tales). @TylerEther I wonder when you changed your mind, before or after the comptroller leak?
Relevant info starts from 9:16, but i recommend to watch full AMA because you will get clear picture.
Maybe @rleshner does not know that a time-machine is not necessary because he has enough COMP tokens to run the proposal
During the course of the research I developed a simple public dapp that anyone can use to get an idea of what arbitrary accounts have been doing on Compound https://mariorz.github.io/compcharts/
The research was done because I thought it interesting and useful, not considering there might a grant possibility. But members of the community approached me about receiving a retroactive grant when the grant programs was first launched. This was unexpected but well received on my side of course. However I did not hear about this again and in the end grants where awarded retroactively to other contributors.
After this I asked on the #grants channel on Discord if I should apply for a retroactive grant for this work. And was told by @sukernik that retroactive grants were something to be avoided in his opinion (even though they had been awarded previously and will probably be awarded in this instance as well).
To make matters worse, recently passed proposal #59 ended up bailing out the industrial recursive farming operations investigated, only 2 of these operations receiving the great majority of the compensation when most of the community was not paying attention.
Looking back I think that perhaps some important interests were not aligned with the investigation into what the bailed out industrial farmers were doing. Needless to say, the whole affair has been a disincentive to participation in the protocol. Just to be clear, I will not receive any rewards given the dates proposed, but still think the idea of retroactive rewards is something to support.
When you looking at the initial COMP distribution and the structure of further COMP distribution to “users” where the parameters are set in favor of the account with more capital, it actually becomes clear whose interests was aligned. Initial 50% voting power and distribution system setup which favors recursive farming puts VC funds and related individuals in a position that they simply cannot lose control of the protocol.
Also, although DAI liquidation event and comptroller leak bug are clear errors of protocol, comparing the reactions of “majority protocol owners” after these unfortunate events can be inferred whose interests are a priority.
After the error in the DAI liquidation, the liquidated users were blamed for poor risk management (tactical move), while after code bug event we could see crying and threats.
Of course, they have to cover their losses and due to the loss in stablecoin this case could be resolved for a year (stablecoin is stable after year), users whose liquidated positions were in ETH this delay made huge losses (tactical move).
I am very sorry for your case because I followed your work and I think you definitely deserve reward.
I would say that Compound has entered in governance crisis, but realistically governance has been illusion from the beginning.
If anyone has contacts with groups like ‘blockchain at berkeley’ who are voting ‘No’ to this. Please invite them into this thread. Maybe we can understand their reasons and clarify why this is good for protocol.
But ya, like i said before, even if this vote fails, i will be glad this sage is over for good. It will be a terrible look for compound governance, but it cannot get any worse than it already is.
