What is autonomy?

[Metfanmike]

No one could ever argue this community isn’t up for having hard conversations.

Re: Genesis Distribution

I agree with you @Matthew_Graham: 28% for one entity seems like a lot for a decentralized organization. It feels off. And it only feels more off as we move through time. We should revisit.

But to this point from Felix in October 2020 that Mel shared…

@setoshi

Re: allocation, we believe in fairness. If we do not live up / earn the slotted allocation, we will be glad to make adjustments/reparations. That said, it is still too early to be able to judge what everyone’s contributions actually look like yet.

…there was an acknowledgement that this could happen.

In fact, this happens with early-stage startups all the time. There is an initial split amongst the founders, but after a period of time, it’s clear that the initial split is not fair…and it’s adjusted (with varying degrees of drama). I was dealing with this just yesterday, as a CPG startup I’ve been advising finally memorialized an adjustment to the initial founder split after months of negotiations and back-and-forth.

So. Damn. Typical.

And that’s the positive takeaway here: this is basically standard operating procedure. So I frankly very much appreciate that @setoshi is mindful this happens, and if there is good reason to have this conversation, that Set will have it. There is (understandably) a lot of angst in this thread and in some other conversations I’ve had, but until we’re told by Set that this is not a topic to revisit, I am going to take what Felix wrote at full face value and trust that Set is up for the convo. I’ve only seen them be open to this autonomy chat fwiw.

Re: Goals for Autonomy

@mel.eth

The governance process:
The process is currently handled in-part 2/3 part by Set employees (@gregdocter and @dylan) and 1/3 non-Set Owls (@Pepperoni_Joe). This proposal to add two more Owls would in theory replace the Set-Owls with non-Set Owls, yielding full autonomy in this regard. [@mel.eth’s mental-model: current autonomy score = 33%; roadmap to 100% = in-progress]

While I am for a fairer INDEX distribution, is 100% removal of Set from key processes an autonomy goal? That’s what I’m taking away from this. That feels extreme but in the other direction. Am I misunderstanding what you meant, @mel.eth? Please jump in if so.

I thought our central autonomy goal was to ensure that a minority entity didn’t have majority influence over our operations, finances, prioritization, and decision-making. But Set is still a valued part of the community. Their technology is invaluable for what we do. They should have a seat at the table.

Re: other ideas in this thread

• The idea of minting new tokens as a fix is very unsettling. It seems antithetical to the ethos of this industry to introduce dilution/inflation. I know it was thrown out as a straw man, but just seconding @Matthew_Graham that we should avoid this.

• If we can sort these issues out in a timely fashion, ideally whatever has been earned can be kept while also properly incentivizing future participation. I personally voted for everything above with the exception of 1) “filing cabinet” (lol) but also 2) the “Reduce Set’s ownership to 10% or less” because I believe that would mean they might have to give back tokens already earned. Or that there wouldn’t be much left for them to earn (thus removing continued incentivization). To use the startup case studies again, one tactic that I’ve seen used is an extension of the vesting period. So - just making up numbers - if Set owned 8% outright currently, there would still be a way for them to get to a (reduced) 15% target, but the vesting would be slowed/extended so it would cover the initial three-year period to reach that reduced stake. That will help fix the absolute figures while ensuring there is still a strong incentive to keep infusing value.

@Thomas_Hepner

I’m itching for a Roadmap too, but want to make sure the community is giving the group the time and space they need to bring forward a well-researched proposal given that the timeline set was for August 25th.

Agree with @Thomas_Hepner. We’re not solving anything here in the forums. I more expressing my viewpoint and support for others but am interested to see what the Autonomy arrives at. And to @mel.eth’s point, it’s worthwhile to see where we are aligned (and possibly not) as that proposal is worked out.