About the post-injection LB controversy

[Felixls]

I fundamentally do not care one bit about things like who is wrong, or who recognizes or admits to what

From my point of view, this is only a blame game, and nothing good comes out of them

I agree on that, I’ve never suggested either.

Improving stuff does not require anything like a postmortem, or public apologies.

I’ve never said anything about public/private apologies.

Blameless post-mortem are useful tools to improve procedures/processes and operative protocols, I won’t argue about wide spread successful practices, but I respect your opinion.

I have no idea what you are referring to. You said it received a comparable push back to baking accounts: was this in any public place?

Liquidity Baking (ex liquidity mining) was introduced as a generalisation/rethinking of Liquidity mining and Virtual Baker, links

Virtual Baker

I want to boost this idea from @murbard to add a “virtual baker” to the protocol that contracts can point at and be allocated rewards, either directly or by holding a token. It’s an alternative to my idea where bakers bid on pools of tez, which I’ve come to call “conventioning”, as a solution to opportunity cost from baking in DeFi contracts. This is an issue for building strong anonymity sets with Sapling, for Dexter where (unlike on Ethereum) fees paid to liquidity providers compete with baki…

https://forum.tezosagora.org/t/liquidity-mining-on-tezos/2529/4

Liquidity Baking

Request for comments on the liquidity baking draft.

In the last one (January) you can still see concerns about tzBTC, like:

“I think this is very useful, but could still be improved by using some decentralized version of wrapped BTC with trustless bridges rather than tzbtc.”

For instance, your account first message was from 3 days ago, and you state in this message that you agreed with LB back then when you read about it back in January.

Yes? that is correct, I agreed with the idea from the initial virtual baker to the last version of it, no without reserves and constraints shared with several participants.

If it was actually not conclusive, why not tell anyone about it? On the dedicated thread on Tezos Agora? Or, if you did not want to clutter it, in private to any core dev?

Look, if I agreed with the idea, why I should be on charge to tell everybody that the topic is still not conclusive (or question to the author(s) are pending) and we need to get out of the way a lot of concerns?

Your comment try to imply something about how I behave, this is not relevant to this topic or the other.

Now, the question is, what do others plan to do? Do they plan to actually put in the time and resources to improve things? If so, let’s do this together, I will gladly help!

I did put time to read information, not only from here, but from other channels, I guess we all can learn from this failure, time will tell.