Kryptstar will also be abstaining. We would accept a liquidity baking program for a project that is more involved in the community. At this point TZBTC just seems like a useless tax, preferably a decentralized projects where all countries can participate freely. Also, the elusive Tenderbake being thrown in with a 10 month liquidity baking contract, seems a bit like a honeypot.
No liquidity baking is fine as well.
TezosRus will also be boycotting this vote. We have been against LB from the very beginning and still are
They want to put a 10-month tax extension inside an awesome tech update, so you can’t say no. Not playing that game, enough is enough.
Don’t get the negativity here. If you don’t like LB, there is an escape hatch for that. Use it! Ask your baker to use it! Devs don’t need to introduce a non-LB proposal for the community to discontinue it. Boycotting this proposal shoots past your goal to get rid of LB.
Now if you want LB for a different coin than tzBTC, that I understand. Instead of lobbying for another single coin I’d rather like to see a discussion on how we can create a more flexible way to subsidize DeFi in general. A DAO endowed with XTZ on a protocol level that is then responsible to distribute subsidies to different DeFi projects would be a starting point.
edit: Thank you for educating me @Swarles. Now I think the negativity is justified
basically the hatch is an illusion, you can’t use it because you need either TF or the exchanges to support you
and it’s not about LB only, it’s more about the way that decisions are made and the governance process works.
personally I’m not against LB (nor am I a baker) but I’d love to see the community gets a say in what’s happening and not only ratifies everything the devs proposed.
Unfortunately, as this is a very important proposal for Tezos, I tend to agree for the reasons I have stated in this thread.
Andreas: the escape hatch is no substitute for proper governance. It is a relatively complicated procedure that presents high barriers to entry. The proposal’s part to lower the threshold from 50% to 33% in a way acknowledges this. What voting system would approve changes based on a 1/3 minority voting in favour? It is also a red herring: between exchanges and the foundation, more than 1/3 of XTZ is in the hands of actors that respectively will not participate in governance (to their credit) and will not vote against liquidity baking. So the escape hatch 33% threshold still requires effectively more than half of bakers to activate it, which is inconceivable.
The truth is that we now have sufficient data to come to the honest conclusion that liquidity baking in its current implementation has been an abject failure. The idea is sound, and I’m sure we’ll get it at some point (I’m on team USDC, if and when it becomes available). But we should not be flippant about raising inflation by ~ 0.3 percentage points against no discernible benefit.
Lastly, I frankly haven’t liked the dismissive attitude of some leading voices of this community towards the legitimate concerns raised by liquidity baking and the choice of supported asset. Whether you are in favour of liquidity baking or not, all sides should be encouraged to share their views and we should welcome different points of view. An open and fair democratic process includes the ability of naysayers to formally express their disagreement simply and effectively. In this case, that means injecting two proposals: one including liquidity baking and one without it. I’m not even sure which I would like my baker to vote for in that case. But the option should be there. It will create a proper consensus in the community either way.
I respect your right to boycott the vote, but if you and other bakers simply choose not to vote then you will only cause quorum to be lowered. Why not just vote Nay?
I do think that there should be at least a discussion about the goals and current state of LB.
What are the steps that are underway and planned to rectify the problems?
Exactly! communication regarding this would be great. I’m as excited as everyone else for Tenderbake 
This Reddit post was censored, people can’t see it when they scroll down, is totally hidden. Unbelievable that mods always resort to censorship.
A possibility would be to inject a different proposal with just the escape hatch changed to 15% or 20%.
This parameter is already being changed so the proposals would be very easy to compare and safe.
Advice to proposal devs - not extend LB with each proposal and let instead 33% of bakers signal with “continue” LB hatch to extend the sunset level.
LB lovers will be able to continue LB by doing some hatchflag work, if they don’t want LB to stop (which will happen by default), all satisfied.
Pros:
Let me put an analogy here for you guys to think about why this economically doesn’t make sense to fund and also why gangs form:
Imagine we want to fund a school with public money…
Is like hiring teachers (LP’s) with public money, for opening a public school (LB), but no students (traders) are attending the school because there is no interest in their educational program (tzBTC), so why keep funding the teachers with public money, if the educational program clearly sucks and no one wants to learn (trade) there? Why not halt the funding of the school, until tzBTC.io improves their educational program? Which could take years.
But since the teachers (LPs) are a gang, pretty much functioning like a syndicate, they will always fight to keep the subsidy, even if that means sacrificing all taxpayers (tezos hodlers) for eternity without delivering results.
How we know that core DEVs are not part of that gang? Or TF? or DLS? Or even some bakers that might also be providing useless liquidity for tzBTC/XTZ pair? Obviously, if they are benefiting from it, they will want to keep the subsidy, even tho there is no benefit for the public good… the only benefit is for them right? LB was supposed to benefit the public good, including all XTZ hodlers who pay that tax, but this is far to be the truth.
And we have proposed multiple times some kind of regulation to the public money, so it would be harder for a bad actor to take the money.
For example, setting up some kind of logic check so if an asset is not delivering decent volume/burning in 6 months, the subsidy gets cut or reduced.
We can’t just launch a subsidy out in the open without some kind of logic check or milestones steps to get the subsidy, public money needs heavy regulation so we can make it harder for bad actors, so they can’t just take all the money like that. Don’t make it easy for them!
But again, these suggestions have been ignored, and obviously they want to keep it for them regulation free.
Some numbers for everyone on whether 33% is a reasonable percentage to require.
In the last vote (Promotion for PTHangzhou), we saw 67.14% participation. However, 47% of those who actually participated had voted for pass (some for legal or other reasons) which means they either cannot vote or don’t even care about the proposal much.
This means that the % of bakers who actually voted (yes, no) is 35.59% of the total baking population. In essence, asking for 33% to flag an escape is asking for almost 100% participation of those who care to vote and can vote.
I am not against Liquidity Baking, but I certainly understand the anger and frustration of those who are.
@NomadicLabs @Marigold What more must people do to be given a voice in the matter? Why do you continue to disenfranchise those who are against LB?
People who were against LB were told “We thought there was consensus on this feature! You should have been part of the conversation here 6 months ago!” Now it has been 6 months since a number of people have expressed their dislike of LB, and still their desire for a way to vote against it in a meaningful way without delaying other technical upgrades has been ignored.
One of the ways proponents of LB assuaged the concerns of those who dislike LB was to say something along the lines of “it has a natural sunset in 6 months if people don’t like it.” But every subsequent proposal has extended the sunset period and we have not been allowed the choice between extending it or letting it expire naturally.
A really simple solution to the problem is to have a proposal that extends the sunset of LB, and one that allows it to expire. This way the people who have expressed their dissent socially (as you requested they do) can formally dissent on-chain without having to vote against much-desired features such as Tenderbake. Additionally, with these two proposals there is no need for using the escape hatch, which the nomenclature suggests was meant to be used in case of an emergency.
I have voted nay a few times, or voted for other proposals, where the majority have voted differently from me, but the fact that I have been able to vote according to my conscience makes it easier for me to accept an outcome that is different from what I would personally desire.
Please give those who are against LB the same opportunity to feel that they are being heard.
What do you see as the impact of the quorum being lowered for the next vote?
As for a nay vote, you can see from tzkt.io that around 15% of bakers are already flagging against it. This represents 42% of those who voted in the last proposal (yes, no votes) which means this proposal is unlikely to gain a super majority of 80% to get passed anyway. But not everyone who is willing to boycott is against LB - they might just dislike the way it is being forced down our throats.
Source: Block 1965739 on tzkt.io
To be clear, I’m not against the quorum being lowered. Bakers have a right to vote however they like, or not vote at all.
I just think voting Nay sends a stronger message and may get your point across in a stronger way, while getting you results faster than simply not voting.
Here’s Jarrod and Arthur talking about changing the language, to confuse bakers, so they don’t know that they can boycott something by not voting, and to trick them into choosing pass instead which implies voting and reaching a necessary quorum. To that level of desperation they reached?
Oh, let’s change PASS into ABSTAIN!! GREAT IDEA.
That way they don’t boycott us!
Genious Jarrod.
You’ve misinterpreted that conversation and you’ve posted in the wrong thread anyway. “Abstain” is objectively more clear than “pass” and the purpose is precisely the opposite of what you are alleging - that is, to avoid confusing bakers.
Please don’t derail a legitimate discussion.
