Hi @verto0912 -
While I’m in full agreement that more voting power should be in the hands of contributors relative to a) what is now and b) other stakeholders in a community-lead and -governed organization, I don’t believe that unlocking the governance power via the scheduled reward for yet-to-be-performed work is the answer. I’m not pushing back against the concept of giving more voting power to the community, I’m pushing back against this method of doing it. Contributor retention is more akin to an unlock than a vest, and unlocking the full utility on day 1 has a deleterious effect on the motivational aspect of that 2-year unlock. I would support a linear vest as raised by @oneski22.
Further to your point regarding a lack of governance power held by the community: there are ways to unlock significantly more community/contributor voting power than proposed and more equitably put it in the hands of a greater number of aligned contributing community members. Perhaps we unlock the governance power of the IC community treasury by a schedule proportionate to the metal owl rankings; perhaps the Autonomy Group additionally works out a deal with Set and/or DFP to utilize their untapped governance power in a way that’s delegated to the contributor community when they aren’t using it. There are unexplored options with significantly greater impact.
What you’ve read from me is not in any way to be construed as a judgement on the ability of FT contributors to responsibly wield governance power, but rather a criticism of the narrow concept of unlocking governance, in-full, ahead of the contribution that it is intended to reward. While I appreciate @anon10525910’s comparison of this proposal to IIP-41 unlocking investor governance, and your appeal to fairness in that regard, the difference is that those investors have put their full capital at risk, while FT contributors have not, they can walk away at any time, keep what they’ve earned, and put their capital (in this case their time and focus) to work elsewhere.
In short, I’m more grateful to yourself and the other FT contributors than can be expressed here in a few words, from the bottom of this Owl’s heart - Thank You; however, this proposal does more to concentrate voting power within the contributing community than it does to empower that community overall. I challenge yourself, the other FT contributors, and the authors of this proposal to do better on behalf of this community in this regard. We do need more control of our fate as an organization of aligned contributors; I’m inspired to see that FT contributors are tackling this challenge and regardless of the result here I sincerely hope that continues.