paradoxicalsphere
commented
1 year ago Hi @ia-davidpichler,
Thanks very much for your input.
As currently written, the proposal does not preclude an implementation involving only ADA that IOHK, Emurgo and CF may already allocate to support existing delegation strategies. In that scenario, the community would effectively be requesting only that the existing internal processes for making decisions related to delegations be revamped. In another scenario, few employees may choose to exercise responsibilities to delegate discretionary ADA, making the effect of the initiative upon the ecosystem little to none in practical terms.
Such an initiative starting with the support of the community carries more weight—similar to the way a stake pool needs community support in the form of delegators in order to thrive. If a solution based on the proposal is "imposed" on the community by founding entities without first gaining community support, then the initiative risks generating further feelings of discontent, resentment and powerlessness among smaller ADA holders and SPOs, as some already express on the Cardano forum and Discord channels at times. Doing nothing would be a better path forward than making things worse. As a core aspect, the proposal seeks to ameliorate rather than stoke concerns or fears of betrayal by larger, more powerful entities within the Cardano ecosystem. Sufficient community support may demonstrate a willingness and commitment to build, increase or restore meaningful participation and trust between the community and founding entities through compromise.
How and at what point in a review process would it be appropriate to contact each founding entity in order to seek some initial feedback or indication regarding potential interest or support for an idea that employees may exercise some direct responsibility for delegating ADA owned by the respective entity?
Oliver
It's unclear in this proposal where the ADA to be delegated would come from.
If the idea is that it should come from the initial founding allocations to the founding entities IOHK, Emurgo, and the CF, then this can't be enforced by the CIP process without violating their property rights. This should instead be taken up with each founding entity directly.