It was a misinformation. There were no 100m TVL increase the week prior to a proposal. And after signalling proposal passed we have seen a 27M decrease in TVL
1 Like
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, as they come from a different perspective than others. A couple of people seem disturbed that you have your own opinion, but it seems to me if we have governance that is so fragile that one opinion can sway an entire community then we have some more work to do to create a robust system.
1 Like
wow! so many new accounts created for this post
It takes some imaginitive thinking to understand how it’s possible to say YES: Stride NO: pStake here that is in the best interests of the DYDX community and doesn’t involve political favoritism.
I will say, that it’s completely impossible and unreasonable to expect validators not to vote in their political interests.
Therefore, the problem is in a congregation of power in un-known entities, and to participate here, one must believe that the centralized entities controlling DYDX will make wise decisions.
Yet, it’s pretty hard to fathom how YES: Stride NO: pStake is a wise decision for DYDX as a protocol, and not one that is political in nature. It just logically doesn’t make any sense.
In conclusion, up your theatrical skills. You’re making a mockery of decentralization by not bringing good enough theatrics.
3 Likes
Unfortunately, I honestly don’t think the semi-pseudonomous centralized entities would rather give up power than continue controlling the protocol (why would they, their goal is to acquire users, not share governance power), so the only solution here to is to up the theatrics.
Put some effort into it please, I really don’t like how this is looking for other potential investors.
1 Like
I’m with you on this - it’s a totally pointless move for the protocol. The validators that mattered just got even more voting power. And this forum’s become a pretty pointless place, hasn’t it? What’s the point in having discussions or taking part as a community member when all the decisions are made by a select few behind closed doors? Plus, plenty of active contributors are on some unofficial blacklist.
I get that many of these pseudonymous entities have skin in the game, being VCs and all. But they couldn’t even be bothered to lay out their stance for us “peasants” who participate in all the public chats.
Maybe it’s time we just call a spade a spade and stop spouting nonsense about mythical decentralization. It’s all just talk, talk, talk, and there was never any real decentralization to begin with.
Let’s not treat people like they’re daft. Practically no one in the crypto community buys into this decentralization tale. But it’s really up to the team to decide how to move forward from here.
If they want to build an active community, they need to start doing something about it instead of just talking. But if the choice is made for total unilateral control, might as well just fund GPT-like bots through Reverie to do the chatting here instead.
2 Likes
r u leaving
