and i strongly urge the community not to attack @ratankaliani . He had courage to atleast come here and post something. Let’s leave this at that. I apologize as well if my previous posts implied something on those lines.
2 Likes
Yes, thank you @tgmed. While I disagree with @ratankaliani, I respect him for actually articulating his position and reasoning, and taking an unpopular stand.
I didnt disrespect him, i bring fact. On member profile you can check stats and topics.
Thank you @rleshner for being so active in the beginning and giving the feeling that like this proposal is the way to go and now you extremely silent and the main twitter account of compound is tweeting this cryptic message about these past airdrops via Coinbase Earn. What kind of voodoo is this.
1 Like
@ratankaliani why did you delete your post? we are all being respectful to you, but when you got found out that you spent 0 mins reading any post on this thread, why are you so ashamed and deleted your post?
If you really think you made a mistake, reconsider your vote. Do NOT delete posts
1 Like
Polychain is abstaining here — open to a retro airdrop, given that early users were ‘contributors’ in a sense, and very supportive of efforts to continue to decentralize the protocol in sensible ways. However, this is long overdue (hurting effectiveness) & not sure this is the best use of time/contributors right now.
Seems that the lack of engagement on this temp check makes the conclusions unclear.
This should have been done a long time ago, but due to a lack of organization never found its way to the voting booth. Now, it’s in a really strange spot. Any prop to accomplish this will be complicated (the amount is debatable & vesting/terms to make this effective will require some cleverness). COMP has some bigger fish to fry. Perhaps this could be part of a larger effort to revamp how we reward contributors on an ongoing basis. There are plenty of COMP ‘contributors’ who probably deserve some retroactive grant for their efforts (of many forms).
3 Likes
Thank you so much for finally taking time to post here. Really appreciate it.
This vote is purely on the first part - “open to a retro airdrop, given that early users were ‘contributors’ in a sense, and very supportive of efforts to continue to decentralize the protocol in sensible ways”
If you abstain/vote “No” to this - then you are contradicting this very point.
There will be a subsequent vote - that will come up with amounts, vesting schedule, additional criterion that needs to be met to claim COMP etc. We are 100% comfortable if you decide to vote ‘No’ to subsequent vote based on what has been put forward.
Right thing to do if to vote ‘yes’ now if you believe you truly mean what you said when you were open to a retro airdrop and early users are contributors in a sense, and you believe decentralization is important to protocol. Please remember this community will refuse to engage in any token gestures of decentralization if this initial vote fails.
3 Likes
This is a terrible point to make. The lack of engagement is from VCs such as yourself for this vote. This thread that has been 1 year in making has attracted 500+ comments and 35k+ views.
5 Likes
And as multiple people have called here, we would like polychain to show some spine here and vote ‘No’ instead of abstaining. Controlling 300k+ votes and abstaining is not a good outcome when the community is enraged
4 Likes
What bigger fish do you have to fry than decentralization?
Without that everything else is meaningless. You just become the corrupted big web2.0 business we are trying to get away from.
What a joke.
2 Likes
Wanted to put out more clear & well-defined thoughts on our ideas soon, and recognized it was unfair to put that out without conferring with our entire team. We’ll be releasing our framework for where to move forward with this soon!
2 Likes
In the spirit of transparency, I wanted to share an update (and my thoughts) in a personal chat in the last few hours.
A voter who voted ‘No’ to this proposal reached out to me (via DM) with a question around why we should be airdropping tokens to early supporters when we could better distribute them via grants/development work for meaningful contributions. We spoke about many other topics, but here is response i shared with this individual, which i feel is important for everyone on this thread to also understand.
COMP: 70% of existing COMP token is controlled by VCs who don’t care about community and stop any meaningful work. As a new individual, if I can chose to make a meaningful contribution here to earn COMP, it still counts for nothing as my minimal COMP has no say.
POOL: On the other hand, consider a community like POOL. Pooltogether team (@lay2000lbs ) airdropped 80% of their token to community and early supporters, so if i chose to work with POOL community, whatever POOL token I earn for my work, i am 100% confident my voice is heard as token is not distributed in a few VC hands.
So how does COMP come out of this messy situation? The only way is to find new faces (early supporters) who had no clue about sybling airdrops and showed genuine love and enthusiasm to the protocol, and ensure they make meaningful contributions in future.
I also told this individual that we could ensure airdrop can only be claimed (if initial holders make certain contributions or protocol reaches a target metric), so we know COMP is not going waste.
I want entire community to know that we are not planning to airdrop valuable COMP to early supporters for fun. We are doing this to come out of shit we are in as a protocol.
P.S: After this proposal fails, i plan to meaningfully work with this individual (and others) to continue to make the protocol decentralized.
2 Likes
Anyone want to create a quick DAO to try and swing this towards vote towards yes?
You do not need a DAO to do that. Every compound user can vote using comp.vote (gasless votes), so if anyone wants to have their voice heard - they already can.
But as everyone knows, top 30 VCs control 70% of vote and as you saw from polychain response, they need not vote ‘No’ for this to fail, they can just abstain and achieve the same outcome. Makes them continue to look good, while killing idea of decentralization for the protocol
1 Like
Yes, but not everyone still has enough COMP to sway this vote.
This was more of a reference to the tweet from @lay2000lbs that started pleasrDAO.
so if DAO members do not have enough COMP, how can we sway the vote?
buy enough comp to make the difference.
@allthecolors @TylerEther thanks for your hard work and efforts.
disappointed @rleshner hasn’t voted, but there is still time…
2 Likes
Even if we miraculously win vote, that will only lead to all of us (especially folks like @allthecolors ) work hard on actual dynamics and to be stuck down at a later date.
Unless, we see real and meaningful contribution from top 30 VCs/whales and votes are delegated to trustworthy individuals (unlike 3 blockchain groups who spent 0 mins reading through this read) - nothing will change.
The airdrop that you may potentially get is worth nothing, if protocol fails for lack of decentralization
1 Like
I agree. the amount of work @allthecolors did on his own free time is unbelievable. One of first things i will propose to grant committee is to ensure he is compensated for his time he put towards this initiative, even if it was for nothing.
5 Likes