Hi Joe, we considered the possibility of the Autonomy Group taking this on. Personally, I am against that for the following reasons:
-
It was not clear, at least to me, from the Formation of the Autonomy Kick-Off Group post that protocol ownership was within the remit of this group. That information would’ve influenced my nominations and voting.
-
From my perspective, the autonomy group has a broad mandate to identify areas where autonomy is needed and come up with a roadmap map to get there. I think we have clearly identified that protocol ownership is an issue. Now we need a more specialised, focussed team to deliver an outcome.
-
Based on feedback, protocol ownership is a critical and urgent problem. It would benefit from a more narrow focus. Further, I would suggest that digging into token distribution requires a different skill set than setting the big picture strategy for autonomy.
-
Lack of an independent party on the autonomy group worries me when it comes to revisiting the genesis token distribution.
At the end of the day though, this is the community’s decision and we can always have a poll or discuss on the Wednesday call whether this should sit with the autonomy group.