To start with, all economic proposals should be separated and never bundled up with other economical proposals or tech proposals. I don’t believe this would take much work from core devs to achieve.
From my part, I will always boycott by deciding to not vote when economics are bundled up with technology in a single proposal. And that would be my way to protest. I have faith that bakers will also do the same, because this is what is more reasonable.
You can’t vote nay in the first proposal phase.
Completely understand- I meant that anyone against the proposal should just vote Nay in the governance phases that allow them to do so.
Boycott is boycott, meaning abstaining from voting. Boycott is not voting Nay or Pass with the intention of reaching quorum.
But why boycott instead of voting Nay? The only reason would be if you intentionally wanted to lower quorum.
I’m becoming increasingly concerned that what happened to EOS will ultimately happen to Tezos. The EOS community seized the foundation’s tokens after years poor price performance and leadership. The prime motivation was the consistently poor price performance. This may sound like an outlandish outcome here; but re-read the comments in this thread. Then repeat all this for a couple more years. We need to face reality and accept that price performance is very, very important. We need to modify tokenomics to drive real value to xtz, or a disaster is coming, and it won’t be pretty.
Cant agree more, i have been pushing for the disbandment of the TF the DLS and for the stepping down of arthur for quite some time now. It is time for a change, and the time for the community to take control of the Tezos chain as it was initially presented in the white paper. We can no longer allow these entities and people dictate the future, and micro manage every change on the network all while profiting while the end users suffers of depreciation. It is time to end the corruption, time to end the centralization, and time to end the false hope that these people have agendas that are inline with the community.
Arthur’s question and answers session didn’t change anything.
We need, no-LB proposal audited by core devs.
Or
Proposal, only activating LB extending by escape hatch.
I will join the boycott. Stop LB already. Will probably also activate the escape hatch in the next days.
threats tend to not be the best way to gain support
It is not a threat, just a warning that will communicate with actions that something is not going well with tezos.
If you think about it, the Core Devs by not giving us a competing proposal were who really threaten first.
Is there a list of Bakers that have publicly come out against LB (for those delegating Tez)?
The reality is that tzBTC is a shitcoin, and we shouldn’t be funding liquidity of pairs XTZ/shitcoin that no one wants to trade. Arthur considers trading volume of the liquidity baking contract a secondary non-important metric, basically anything that make us money is not important for Arthur, he has to say that because he knows tzBTC is not generating any trading volume at all and won’t generate in years until tzBTC is listed in all major exchanges and have global recognition and trust that USDC already has. We should pause LB funding, either until USDC arrives, and we can add it to LB, or until tzBTC is not a shitcoin anymore and is listed in all major exchanges and have global trust, but that will take years.
It just doesn’t make sense to fund all the journey of tzBTC from being a shitcoin to becoming an AA class asset like USDC, and losing money for no real benefit all along the way, when we can just re-add tzBTC to LB once it’s finally ready, later, in some years when is no longer a shitcoin anymore.
I invite everyone to vote nay instead of boycotting Ithaca, It sends a stronger message to TF and NL for ignoring a large portion of bakers and including a poison pill inside a good proposal.
TLDR: Holding back this excellent upgrade by boycotting and holding the protocol hostage to speak louder than the rest is a big no-no for us! Tezos boutique will be voting YAY again now unless tech issues are found during the voting process. We will offer a 0% fee to any delegates of any boycotter that will join our cause.
Tezos Boutique, among the OG bakers, albeit unhappy with how LB is performing, will not be joining the boycott and much less so in the “abstain from voting” way. Below are our reasons:
Abstaining and failing to meet quorum has a negative impact; a lower quorum allows fewer participants to pass a proposal, increasing the “cartel” scenario possibility. Abstaining is understandably a desperate measure, but consider such action pretty much like holding the quorum safety hostage to please a call for attention. We can surely do a lot better than that as a community.
There is the possibility to stop it by promoting a movement to reach the % needed to signal-stop LB; our bakery would have joined such an initiative. Our opinion is that this will send a more constructive and solid message out there than this whole boycotting idea.
The majority decided to try LB and activate it; boycotters did it knowing ALL the rules of that proposal, including the flag to stop it and the quorum required to do it. Boycotters accepted these terms when they voted YAY in the past; just as we did, we carry the consequences, and we process changes honouring the rules we agreed and voted in. We will never hurt the commonwealth on purpose because we noticed late that we didn’t like it.
The core devs are honouring the above result when they take the active stance to extend it instead of letting it just expire; alas, it is not their call anymore to stop LB without asking us, stakeholders, we put the thing in, we take it out in the same way.
We believe the time to market for tenderbake is way more important than the outcome of whatever the message intended by boycotters is, and we do not understand how on earth this is not clear for them. So we will vote YAY for Ithaca unless a technical issue is found during the process.
With all the above in mind, our bakery will signal the escape hatch for our independent reasons to dislike the LB experiment. We dearly hope that the majority will know better.
You have the right to vote NAY or PASS if you dislike the proposal, but vote, in the name of decentralization, please, vote!
Furthermore, we are offering a 0% fee to all delegates with at least five cycles under a proven boycotter and until we’re out of space (not NAYers or PASSers, which are helping to keep the quorum high, thank you, but from those abstaining by boycotting) until the end of voting and, in case of approval, for the whole duration of this amendment and until the next letter will be injected (10% fee afterwards, 3.5% by joining and sticking with us in our Telegram channel).
Sincerely,
The Tezos Boutique team.
Upon reflection, I have to totally agree with this post. Voting nay is more effective anyway, there is a much better chance of the proposal failing to meet the 80% supermajority than there is of it failing to meet quorum. Already now, to reach the supermajority necessarily the quorum must be reached as well.
I voted nay too
Everyone should have boycotted like they initially stated, would have been more effective, waited to see if quorum passed and then, only then vote no. Now we are very close on both quorum and super majority passing.
boycotting is a wrong strategy because Yay votes can reach a super majority and we may be surprised by last second Pass votes in order to reach quorum. This plan could be in play to trick people to not to vote Nay and boycott the vote.
Voting Nay is more effective in order to stop the super majority.
IF YOU ARE AGAINT THIS PROPOSAL VOTE NAY NOW !
