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.
