JimyThing

This is pretty sweet, someone wanna test it out for us?

Good morning! 🦍☕️ God didn’t wake you up to play small. Build. Hold conviction. Move with discipline. Markets test patience before they reward it. Stay prayed up. Stay positioned.

We try to stay plugged in. X, Discord, governance forums, daily. Yet, the vast majority of proposals seem to arrive fully formed, already live for voting, with no prior discussion we were part of or even aware of. - Proposal 29 passed with wide sweeping yes votes almost immediately after going live — by the time we were aware of it, it had effectively already been decided - We understand some proposals need to move quickly, and we are not suggesting every decision requires months of deliberation - But who decided the PSE split was 40% to stakers and 60% to other allocations? Why not 50/50? Why wasn't that number up for community input before it was written into a passed proposal? - Proposal 30 introduces a Foundation Delegation Program that delegates TX "proportional to voting power" to validators — what does proportional mean exactly? What is the total amount being delegated? How much specifically is reserved for validators under 2% voting power, and what are the real performance thresholds to qualify? And why are all these terms not up for discussion and collaboration prior to forming the proposal to be voted on by a decentralized community? - We also notice a severe lack of participation amongst some validators voting at all, should this not play into things at some point? there is an abstain option for those who wish not to make a decision and still count as have participated and voted. - These are not rhetorical questions, we genuinely want the answers and think the community deserves them before a proposal is live, not after - Being active, engaged, and running validator infrastructure does not seem to be enough to get a seat at the table during the design phase, and that concerns us - The best version of this ecosystem is one where proposals come out of open discussion, where the community can push back on the numbers before they are finalized, where validators are consulted before economic changes that directly affect their operations are put to a vote We are not saying decisions are being made in bad faith. We are saying that a decentralized network should look decentralized in its process, not just in its tokenomics on paper. Are we decentralized or not? That question should have an obvious answer. Right now we are not sure it does. We want to hear from other validators and delegators. Are you experiencing the same thing? What would better process look like to you?