Yep, sacrificing one for another would be a problem. I think at this point we have to consider adding second pairing as I originally proposed doing anyway, as opposed to replacing one for another. After that original topic proposal received a considerable number of likes I asked the core developers behind liquidity baking what their thoughts were and if they could assist in adding the token.
One of them
- directed me to this article
- told me a token change needs to come from a community amendment proposal (not from the core development teams)
This was the only reason why we created a protocol injection that would replace one for another as opposed to our original plan of adding a second token. It was because that was the specific path in which we were were directed to ready made instructions. Tip toeing around Tezos politics, we wanted to commit the most ‘non-offensive’ action, given the fallout of Granada. We certainly didn’t want anyone in core development speaking against the proposal.
That doesn’t mean all LB advocates agreed with that specific action, but what could we do then,… hindsight is 20/20.
