# Announcing Granada

**URL:** https://forum.tezosagora.org/t/announcing-granada/3183
**Category:** Research and Development
**Created:** [May 31, 2021, 1:32pm UTC](https://forum.tezosagora.org/t/announcing-granada/3183 "2021-05-31T13:32:07Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 102

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![murbard](https://forum.tezosagora.org/user_avatar/forum.tezosagora.org/murbard/32/67_2.png) [@murbard](https://forum.tezosagora.org/u/murbard)
#### Post date: [June 2, 2021, 9:58am UTC](https://forum.tezosagora.org/t/announcing-granada/3183/102 "2021-06-02T09:58:31Z")

</div>

> [@keefertaylor](#):
>
> I am not arguing against liquidity baking. I am arguing against the parameters chosen.

I have never claimed you were arguing against LB, there is nothing in what I’ve written that suggests I think that, but you keep repeating it to me. Superficially this looks like “explaining your position” but de facto it’s a way to misrepresent mine.

> [@keefertaylor](#):
>
> I take issue with the fact that (1) the asset is chosen in a top down way

The asset was proposed and debated months ago on Tezos Agora. Comments on it were literally [requested back in January](https://forum.tezosagora.org/t/liquidity-baking/2587). It’s disingenuous to represent this as a top down choice.

The proposal can also be copied and submitted with a different asset, the proposal can also be rejected. This is not an imposition by any stretch of the imagination.

> [@](#):
>
> and (2) a controversial feature is tightly coupled to improvements that will obviously pass with an overwhelming majority (everyone wants fasters blocks and cheaper gas).

It’s not tightly coupled the patches are largely orthogonal. But even then, the point of proposals is not primarily as a choosing procedure but as a ratification procedure. It simply does not scale to try and poll people with proposals. This is why the tzip process exists, this is why Tezos Agora exists in the first place, this is why feedback on the whole proposal, including the choice of tzBTC was actively sought _for the past five months_.

It’s unrealistic to assume the proposal phase is an adequate venue for polling. It exists largely in case irreconcilable differences between competing proposals exist, or in case there’s no clear consensus that a proposal is acceptable, it’s not a poll.

> [@](#):
>
> This is the core concern I have. I’m simply surprised to see it coupled tightly in a way that we _have_ to uptake it, and I’m worried about the precedent being set that a slate of assets aren’t being presented.

Every proposal is opinionated, there’s no precedent here. If you don’t like the proposal, make another one, you have more than enough technical know-how to do so.

On another note: you could easily have come out and said: oops, not enough people participated in the tzip process, let’s have competing proposals for those who missed this. You chose instead to present this as an ominous, power-consolidating, precedent-setting move by “the powers that be”.

By creating this confrontational framing, you’ve engineered a no-win situation where the development teams involved in this either don’t inject new proposals and are thus insensitive to “the demands of the community” (even though comments on the choice of assets were requested for the past 5 months), or they do, in which case they give the appearance that they were up to something nefarious until you bravely called them up on it. So if you think these proposals are relevant, inject them.

---

_[View the full topic](https://forum.tezosagora.org/t/announcing-granada/3183)._