No, there is no such argument. Tez only exist on the current chain because the genesis block proposed by TF was broadly adopted by the community, TF did not take “your” tez (or “their” tez for that matter) and place them into a chain, there were no tez before the genesis block, a genesis block which included the rules and logic of Tezos, including the parts you are unhappy with.
The fact that smart-contracts can delegate their full balance has been in the Tezos codebase since 2015.
It seems to me you’re grasping at straws to try and argue for what amounts to a burn.
Divi project, there was 1 entity to had 10% which it was the team, they sold in the market to continue developing due to lack of funds, now there is no entity with more than 2%.
Not only has such a thing been allowed in Tezos smart contracts since long before the fundraiser, but it also frequently occurs in the traditional financing world, with companies paying dividends to unvested shareholders.
And because the point of baking is only to keep up with inflation, you actually lose value if you don’t stake.
But anyway, I’m aware of some current efforts by TF to address this overall concern.
It is tradable in various exchanges, and yet there is no exchange that owns a lot of the coin, perhaps because that coin hodlers are hodling hard that’s why there is very little of the coin exchanges.
Lack of liquidity of that coins is irrelevant, it still locked in masternodes, with no entity owning more than 2% that is a hard fact, when it gets to more exchanges, if the coin succeeds, I bet the distribution of the rich list will stay the same.
@murbard I don’t know what to tell you then, the issue remains, between the TF, DLS and all exchanges, all control 32,881 rolls of a total of 85,252. That’s 38.58% of the total rolls of centralized decision-making.
I don’t know what could be the solution, I guess we just appeal to maintain the Status quo? I don’t recognize the TF as legitimate owners, I do recognize the DLS as legitimate owners. Furthermore, I know DLS is your and your wife company, why you guys can’t just subtract your part from the tezos foundation, I don’t trust the TF. I trust you and your wife company tho.
BUMP the thread a little bit to add some argument. @murbard When you guys will be able to legally separate your part (DLS) from what the TF is holding? I think the biggest issue is that, community trust more the DLS than the TF, and the problem is that TF is holding both. I also would feel safer if the DLS could legally use the TEZ to vote for proposals, because I know you guys would be able to vote rationally and may mitigate exchanges or the (TF) voting against our interests.
The fairest solution to this problem is for the Tezos Foundation to simply burn a percentage of their XTZ. Apparently this new bakery is taking matters into their own hands and starting to burn their own XTZ!
Barry the whole point is to have a boredless economy. Might as well rename Tezos to SwissCoin. It’s a cool name I think many people will like and will make them feel safe that a nation is protecting them.
Nope, you’re missing the point and it’s a subtle one. The point is I’d rather have a trusted entity being the steward of the warchest that is bound by the rule of law to operate a certain way, because if they don’t then there is a place where we can get recourse(and that the country will actually enforce the rule of law). If you want something that isn’t bound by the rule of law to operate a certain way (in terms of spending every dollar on the Tezos ecosystem), then you might want to take a look at block.one.
Even though I mostly agree with you, I believe it’s BS to say the least to rely on some laws ( Swiss/US or whatever).
We’re building the new paradigm. We have to be resilient against governments which are our natural competitors.
TF can be enforced to vote against privacy or anything else.
Although tbh if they voted against something like this pretty sure they’d be forked out
I’m against taking anyone’s property but if we hardcoded the only option for TF to vote pass I’d be happy with it
Not sure ctez option works because ctez is slightly volatile against tez and that could be tricky for regulators
You rather have a trusted nice place to go (to a Switzerland government office) to sue them IF they do anything illegal which is voting nay or yay? Then just not having to have that risk by taking a governmental on-chain action? The chain started with an entity owning the veto power, that’s something that goes against distributed decentralized blockchains.
Besides, we have governance and we have consensus. People often say if we don’t like the TF we fork, and what would happen if the TF anonymize their coins into multiple addresses via Zkchannels in tezos, we wouldn’t be able to distinguish them, and they would have effectively killed the governance and have control over the other forks. This is turning really dangerous.
Hard-coded the TF to vote pass for eternity is a good solution, but they can transfer their coins to other addresses and bypass that as well.
I hope you’re not holding any btc or eth if you want to go down that line of thought.
So now you are wanting to hardcode the protocol so that no one can own more than a certain amount of tez? What are you going to do when a large tez holder splits his tez up into different accounts, but are still the same owner?
Let me just recap what you’ve proposed so far: take away someone else’s property and limit the amount of property someone/entity can own. Do you not see the the dangers that you’re proposing? I would argue that’s even more dangerous than the “possible” dangers that you’ve brought up, which feels like you’re creating more trouble than there really is.
