Formation of a Protocol Ownership Kick-Off Group

[fallow8]

@jdcook

Can you expound on why you feel this way? I am not understanding how this post coming from the FTs would have this effect?

How do we set ourselves apart from the community? Why does that perception exist?

And why would would it be in our interest to act disproportionately in the interest of Set?

Sure, this conversation is ongoing currently. And it’s the primary reason I have this dynamic top of mind now. It’s an ask to give the benefit of the doubt to the Full-time Contributors and accelerate governance power into their hands. As you see in the thread, I support it with a 6-month cliff (preferring a more linear cliff but concede that the difference isn’t worth significant engineering resources). Others do raise concerns about the relative fairness of the Full-time structure.

In the formation of the Autonomy Group, I also said the following:

@fallow8

One suggestion I’d like to make. That there be no more than one Full-time Contributor representing the Coop in this group. That might seem counterintuitive, but one of the opacity concerns I have is that there is (or was) a weekly meeting with Set and the full-timers where it seems there’s an extra level of candor or high-level decision making. Also, with Set holding the cards and each of these contributors having a vesting contract with the Coop, there’s an unavoidable dynamic that I know I’d have trouble preventing from creeping into my own perspective without significant effort to battle subconscious bias.

So from my perspective there’s (1) a proposal from a group of authors who are seemingly only unified by their compensation structure within the Coop, (2) who (used to?) meet regularly with Set to make decisions on behalf of the Coop (something I raised as a concern in the Autonomy Group setup), (3) drawing conclusions from the yet-to-be-completed Autonomy Group’s process that they were elected by the community at large to complete, and (4) doing so with a group composition proposal that seems very structurally favorable to Set. All while there’s ongoing conversation about the relative fairness of that group’s compensation and governance power. That confluence undermines my trust that those concerns are taken seriously by the authors.

But I also genuinely could see how that might be coincidental. That perhaps it just isn’t something you guys see as an issue. And I’ll acknowledge my words were overly vague and slanderous. I regret that, but not the sentiment. Because it still strikes me as relatively tone-deaf.