Hey @Jordi, It’s good to see a variety of perspectives being expressed on this proposal, especially those highlighting potential drawbacks.
Some recent proposals have been hurried through without comprehensive risk assessments. This is a concern in light of the negative impacts observed following the reduction of trading rewards. However, the present proposal, with its applicability confined to v3, may serve as a constructive trial to guide decisions as we move towards v4.
As we transition, refining our governance procedures becomes an absolute necessity. A straightforward solution might be to set a specific timeframe for proposal discussions prior to them being voted on by validators. This approach would grant sufficient time for in-depth risk evaluations, exploration of potential adverse effects, and more profound community dialogues.
Moreover, adopting a council structure could be highly beneficial. A governance council could pave the way for more systematic decision-making, while a risk council would facilitate detailed risk assessments. Additionally, instituting a grants council is essential not only for ensuring automation and cost-efficiency but also for expanding the scope of decision-making processes.