So you don’t understand: one thing is the voting the other thing is the governance framework. The balancer governance framework was not ready and you decided to launch the vote. Stating the “only” legitimate basis are the voters is naive. If this would be true we would not have constitutions and elections system. You shouldn’t talk about honesty, given that you are apparently not capable of accepting your mistakes.
1 Like
BADGER is not a significantly large veBAL HODLer ser. Badger controls well under 500k veBAL for Balancer snapshot voting. BadgerDAO just happen to be a community focused DAO with a lot of people that have opinions, think about tokenomics and participate in governance.
Badger has always been focused on partner focused product development, and throughout this process have continued to try to create value in the balancer ecosystem and bring new users, LPs and DAOs into it.
I have no desire to comment on the rest of what you said, but don’t pull BADGER too far into this ser.
2 Likes
Sorry. I saw how active you were in the gov framework discussion. I interpreted some of the posts as disappointment about how some choices were handled by the Balancer DAO.
But, for sure, I didn’t want to speak on your behalf. I appreciate the time that you spend in participating in gov discussions.
Who are the veBAL holders and which interests they have is not my point. I only wanted to explain that a precise governance framework is needed in order to take decisions as the one concerning the CREAM/WETH pool.
1 Like
Troll me if you have fun, but you know why Orb was created and who participated to the voting.
1 Like
Yeah. I’d like to see a bit more feedback being taken.
In the end quite a bit of feedback was taken on the Framework. The thing was edited 11 times and looks very different then what was initially proposed. So while I was sometimes discontent, that discontent was heard and feedback was taken and the framework that is going to governance seems reasonable to me.
I do think the governance process of one guy bringing up a framework, everyone yelling at him, he making changes again and again until finally pushing something out that doesn’t allow participants in the ecosystem much time/leeway to adjust strategies is suboptimal.
So in the end, the results weren’t bad, the process could improve. Having a group of people(some who are not on the balancer team) to work on bringing governance forward, and incorporating feedback from the community on complex groups would probably be a nice step forward at some point.
4 Likes
I’ve been reading some forum posts and quietly lurking here, I’m going to throw my hat in for understanding and not necessarily to argue or create any additional discontent. Full disclosure - I work for Orb (previously BLabs) on their Business Development Team.
I don’t really care as far as “who” voted for Orb, as far as I can tell it was one of the biggest voter turn outs and in my own personal research of the wallets, it seemed that the “For” votes were a variety of folks - From what appeared to be current/former BLabs employees to Degens while the “Against” votes were primarily one (bad) actor.
What I will say now is that Orb carries a large portion of the costs that are typically associated with any early stage company. We carry the Marketing, Integrations Engineering, Legal, BD, UI/UX and other costs. While that does seem like a large amount, in it’s current state it’s actually comparatively lean to other companies in a similar state.
For example, if we look at Upstart (a cloud based, AI lending platform - And a nice comparison as they are also in a disruptive industry), they did not really become cash flow positive until their 4th and 5th year (as can be seen by the expenses > income for the first three years)
And in reality Upstart didn’t really become “healthy” until year 5. Up until this past year they were also dabbling in a few additional fields (being a lender themselves, etc.) that were really not helpful to their bottom line. Why do I share this? I believe Balancer is going through this exact process now, narrowing down their focus and determining what truly moves the needle product-wise.
Now am I saying it’s OK that Balancer is operating at a Net Loss at this moment? No I am not saying that’s OK. What I am saying is that it’s expected for the first few years. If we remove Orb we remove the primary folks looking to further Balancer. I don’t think there’s anyone else that can fill the shoes of a @rabmarut or a @gerg when it comes to engineering acumen and understanding of the Balancer Tech Stack, just like there’s nobody that can really replace a Pon when it comes to UX design (amongst the bevy of other skills he brings to Balancer) - And I could go on and talk about each person at Orb but this would become too drawn out.
In closing…I really just wanted to give some additional perspective on costs and value that Orb brings, as I’ve seen you make comments about costs a few other times throughout my lurking. We’re doing our best to help Balancer get to a healthy state, both on the tech and growth side of things. Having to constantly answer questions about why costs are high should have likely been done on the front end and maybe we could have done a better job on the frontend explaining and giving context around said costs. But we want exactly what you want - A healthy Balancer
6 Likes