with unaligned interest between users and early investors can be worse. i.e. with this gas fees, who can afford to vote on proposal? Regardless of the airdrop prop result, a solution needs to be found to the current governance problem.
agree
1 Like
Do these temperature checks have a minimum quorum? how do we know if this passes/fails?
In terms of gas fees, top 30 voting addresses are all know entities who can afford to vote (inspite of gas fees). We should request all 30 of them to vote yes/no as this clearly shows which way they lean
2 Likes
Pool together stepped up for the yes
I agree, the writeup from Tyler is very open : âin at least some amount and/or wayâ.
Considering the community enthusiasm around this proposal, the polls, the work and research done, I hope we see every major governance actor step up FOR, thinking about the author of this thread who own more than 10% of the voting power of the protocol, and voiced in his initial post in favour of a non-0 governance allocation toward early users, the founder who participated in this thread as well. Now seems to be the moment or never
10 Likes
Saludos.-
1 Like
Thanks to pool together and others for stepping up the game. We are close but lower than votes for against. Really not sure who is against this proposal which only does good.
5 Likes
If you want to vote with out gas you can use https://comp.vote/ it alows you to vote by signature
7 Likes
anyone knows who âblockchain at berkeleyâ is represented by? 50k votes to âNoâ. Did they make their position clear on why they are voting No?
4 Likes
https://twitter.com/CFrogE1/status/1457049632811401216 Finally some momentum on twitter with influencers bringing attention to this
3 Likes
wow so much against this proposal⌠should ask first guys to vote since he voice his support for this airdrop
1 Like
Remember majority of community is for proposal.
There are 3 voters who voted ânoâ so far.
One of them is @getty . He responded to someone on twitter with thoughts on why he voted âNoâ. He does not believe users who used protocol early deserve to get an airdrop. He is building his own https://gfxlabs.io/ and if he sticks to his philosophy, he will not airdrop and figure out better ways to drive value in ecosystem. We need to respect him for stating his opinion and judging him if he fails to follow his ideals in his own ventures.
The other two - âBlockchain at Berkeley and columbiaâ are just plain bad actors in this space. Bunch of 20 year oldâs who have no respect for protocol and trying to safeguard their own positions. Multiple people who are on some of their telegram alumni groups mentioned this as a running joke. I donât want to jump to conclusions, but it is what it is.I am not questioning their vote, just their lack of justifying their response the way getty did.
But honestly, the real people who are letting down this community is not those 3 individuals/groups who voted âNOâ. Its those people who are refusing to vote on this protocol. This includes @alive who started this whole idea, and @rleshner who talks about this topic at every event but refuses to take action. Donât even get me started with other VCs such as polychain capital who control 300k votes and voted on 0 proposals so far in history of governance.
Summary: This thread has ~500 responses and ~$30k views (highest by any stretch in governance forum, and its not losing because a bunch of selfish university blockchain groups have voted âNoâ. It is failing because @rleshner and @alive and other VCs who control 70% of governance votes now fail to use their vote where it matters to decentralize this protocol. I will be extremely happy if these individuals come and vote âNoâ instead of hiding behind the scenes. Shame on a16z and other VCs in this space.
7 Likes
I agree, I think as a community we have tried everything possible to get the larger wallets to voice an opinion. I think we know why they are not voting and not voicing an opinion.
- It shows all major COMP is held by VCs or Individuals
- If they vote WITH the project they dilute their value and loose money
- If they voted against the project it would send a even clearer message that they donât want to dilute COMP at all and are happy with its current centralization.
Let us remember COMP did a public launch of a Uniswap LP pool with a large amount of liquidity for sale at once the price rose to 100$ in hours, these whales didnât earn their COMP through farming. So they got an advantage early in the COMP token release. I personally think this is bad OPTICS for these big actors. They know we canât pass a Vote because we have no COMP because we didnât acquire it the first day it was trading. You donât let people get Grants and funding and actually put time and energy into something you know wonât pass. That is just not the spirit of crypto in my opinion, the fact we know who the whales are and they are voiceless is the worst part of this. Just say NO lock the thread and move on 9 months ago. I donât see any point in continuing this discussion after the TEMP check lack of voting.
If the Major Holders wonât even compensate people for protocol failures(dai liquidation, comp reward issue), I wouldnât hold our breathe they will vote Yes on this.
1 Like
Sad to see we lose 
. But that is how it has been since decades. Rich get richer , poor get poorer . Top few % control majority and decentralized protocols are no exception unfortunately. Probably Nothing. WAGMI some day. Thanks everyone for their sincere effort.
2 Likes
why that guy been working and supportive on this idea before not voting at all? are they just making fun of us
Here is what we can do next
Every time @alive or a16z tries to market decentralization as a goal - letâs show this thread as a reminder on double standards.
Every time @rleshner pulls crap about how he feels guilty about not supporting early supporters and its only thing he could done better, let us show him this thread and ask him to **** up
This fight is just getting started. As i mentioned before, this fight is not against those who voted âNoâ. This fight is against those who refuse to vote, so that their positions are not diluted.
The next time asks for community support to justify to SEC this protocol is decentralized, lets us abstain from voting. Let only top 30 votes vote for themselves with 70% of votes.
On a positive note, lets not forget gems like @lay2000lbs (from pooltogether) who went out of his way to show his support. What he did was not a token gesture, that was pure respect to community. Letâs show our support to these guys. And of course @TylerEther for doing the right thing and getting this to a vote and @allthecolors for his hard work.
8 Likes
I agree with you, a mistake was made in the initial distribution of COMP tokens where early investors and the team got 50% of the max COMP supply and the other 50% they picked up by recursive farming. Given the strategically controlled governance structure, it is difficult to assume that a third party was allowed to access the âgovernance tokenâ in an easy way (stablecoin farming would probably be disincentivized, but isnt, why?).
Community members (individuals) who have expressed their views non-anon should not be called out or lynched on the basis of their decision, but the stated reason for that decision is worrying.
As for these two state institutions with 50,000 COMP, I would be surprised if they voted âforâ, because they actually represent one of the reasons why we want a decentralized decision-making structure.
Given the apparent opportunistic behavior and such statements, what are the long-term goals of the protocol? On many examples so far we have seen that a community cannot be bought with $, only IPO.
i was right a year ago)
We shared some of our thoughts here:
Itâs not an easy decision for us as well. We as an organization donât hold any significant allocations of COMP tokens - only voting power - and our goal is to make Compound as decentralized & open as possible. Efforts like https://comp.vote and other community initiatives to increase access have been the best way to do so - and we hope to improve access in this way as well.
However, our main issue with a one-time airdrop (in any form) is that it doesnât incentivize medium to long-term engagement in the protocol - we need effective systems in place that directly reward holders who participate in governance and not just dump their tokens/not participate in governance. With those in place (i.e. governance reward mechanisms to those with âreal contributionsâ - however that is defined), rewarding early users could make sense - but without them, we see little advantage to an airdrop in comparison to using that funding to decentralize the protocol more at a high level.
Rewarding governance participation isnât easy, but it is a necessity to the future health & sustainability of Compound for us to work on the best way to do so.
4 Likes
Completely agree with everything Ratan said, but also would love to instead investigate some kind of rewards system for successful proposals or finding bugs in currently active ones. Active governance is extremely important for keeping the proposal safe and innovative.
Thank you for the response. While I (and most of the community) personally disagree with your response, we thank you for making your position clear on this and justifying it.
In 6 hours, when this proposal fails - the idea of compound decentralization will 100% fail. It is no longer a game of (a) do early users get airdrop or (b) do contributors get COMP token for rewards. It is about top 30 VC + influencer wallets covering 70% of COMP tokens vs rest of community. And at this time, the non-whale community is frustrated and we have 0 incentive to support any method of decentralization
I will only urge you to reconsider your position and vote âYesâ and when actual dynamics of airdrop are revealed, feel free to vote âNoâ if you think thatâs not a good use of COMP funds. But if you decide to stick to your âNoâ, we as a community will continue to respect that as well.
Thank you so much
5 Likes
and @ratankaliani - Just to be clear, this airdrop will be unlocked over 4 years and we can set it up in a way that airdrop recipients contribute to protocol over next 4 years to be able to claim it. We can set this up however we like in a follow-on vote where exact dynamics are finalized.
Please remember that your âNoâ vote will help retain governance power among 30 inactive VCs, and rest of community is likely to abstain from any further participation
5 Likes