I don’t believe this was poorly intended on Nomadic’s part, and I thank Nomadic for inviting such commentary and for reading this feedback. That’s why it’s good we have these discussions. To clarify what needs to be made apparent. That’s the beauty of on-chain governance that makes me thankful for Tezos.
On the issue, by including this one company’s 3rd party dApp into the upgrade, even if it’s just the example token, it venerates that single actor - it anoints them with a status of legitimacy that is anti-competitive, and it’s antithetical to what we’ve all come to know as Tezonian values, or even Blockchain community values for that matter.
Furthermore, and not to distract from the point, but unlike this company, there are also plenty of entities (yes, obviously that includes mine) that have been highly proactive in engaging the Tezos community that have not even been consulted nor considered for inclusion. This would also be a slap in the face to all of us as well in the favor of a financial institution that has had nothing to do with Tezos for all this time. I am not advocating that our nor any entity’s 3rd party token be ‘added’ to the list of what’s included in this measure. Rather, I am arguing that no 3rd party entity’s token should be baked into a protocol upgrade.
Even if you disagree, you have to admit…it comes off a bit odd, no?
