I agree the governance process can use some work. I personally don’t like that if a bug is discovered, the only options are to accept it or cancel the entire process and go back to square one. I do think there needs to be some aspect of edit-ablity in case an issue arises.
I also don’t like that when a baker votes, a snapshot of their rolls is taken at that time. If a delegate is unhappy with the decision, they are unable to remove their funds from that vote. The only option is to change baker and hope the loss of funds changes their mind … which is probably unlikely.
Re: controversial nature of LB:
- This didn’t just pop up one day. Nomadic discussed their thoughts and plans publicly before even starting the work. Worked with multiple other companies to make it happen (who also discussed it publicly), and it took quite some time to produce. They were very upfront about their plans and faced little to no backlash while this was being discussed/worked on.
There are a lot of very unfair comments/arguments around the nature of this being bundled together. They announced this would be the case ahead of time and included a mechanism to turn it off immediately if anyone didn’t see the discussion and didn’t like it, or it caused any unforeseen issues, if the majority agreed. In the interest of fairness have now reduced the escape hatch requirement, very significantly.
I agree the governance process could be made better, but I have no issue with how this was done. As of yet, I certainly don’t think it has been abused to force something harmful into the ecosystem. You have to remember that these are independent companies. They are free to propose whatever they like, and we all vote. Demanding that they take on significant effort and cost to maintain dozens of different branches so that everyone can vote for each combination of specific features, is not feasible. Also demanding that new features go in proposals one after another will drastically slow down innovation and progress. New features will take an order of magnitude longer to be injected.
Anyone writing a proposal does so with the knowledge that if they produce something dangerous or damaging, that they stand to loose all the time, effort and money put into the entire proposal. Its in their interest to make sure the community are onboard with the ideas prior to launching the proposal … and this happened in this case.
I see nothing wrong with LB, that requires derailing this proposal to make sure that its stopped. The combination of proposals open to anyone and the escape hatch I feel is more than fair.
- The actual controversy stems from a minority, many of whom are sowing doubt in the community through the use of lies, false statements and mis represented facts. For example Mack has a video on youtube where he suggests the reason Nomadic didn’t build/maintain a frontend for LB, is so that they can keep it secret from the community to artificially keep the APR high. This is a complete lie, utter nonsense and very conspiracy theory-esk. There are many frontends available, even temple wallet has natively integrated it to their swap functionality.
I don’t think LB is perfect in anyway, and i’m perfectly onboard with discussing whats the appropriate token for it to use. I have no issue with the feature, how it was injected, how its maintained etc. The only issue I have is the lies and false statements being used to manipulate the community into one direction