Hello everyone,
I’ve been following this conversation and hoped for more comments to pop up.
Greg, thank you for bringing this up and I’m sure the vast majority here would not consider you a jerk just because you express your opinions openly and frankly. That’s exactly what is needed!
Just a couple of thoughts:
Do you think it’s fair that you have FF status while Symmetric does not? I don’t
When assessing a scenario like this, I would suggest sticking to frameworks/proposals. Symmetric didn’t get approved as a FF because the proposal was rejected by BAL token holders. Whatever the majority of BAL voters decides, then it is implemented. Not sure if this falls into the fair/unfair category but it is the framework we all adopted until today.
the fact that people vote blindly without really digging into what they’re voting on
Would you mind supporting these claims? Why do you think this? If BAL token holders didn’t “dig enough”, what was the cause of rejecting the Symmetric FF agreement then? I’d like to know more and understand your line of thoughts.
Just as a reminder, some considerations were made on the proposal to help the voter making an informed decision:
Weaknesses
- Making UST as the main focal point can be a double edged sword for two reasons:
- focussing on one stable coin creates an overexposure that some would consider unnecessary in terms of point of failure;
- the general missing of potential trading volume on alternative pairs.
- While the BeethovenX Friendly Fork agreement has been reached after launch, in this case, the agreement should be reached before. Consequently bringing a certain level of uncertainty. However, the Partnership subDAO believes that risks have been reduced considerably given the deep due diligence done on the team and the partners involved in this collaboration.
The DeFi landscape is still in its early stages and layers of uncertainty are very much present, especially in today’s market conditions. A constantly evolving market generates certain known unknowns and a level of unpredictability that needs to be taken into account when operating in cutting edge environments.
As per solarcurve comments, while respecting his opinion (which I’m sure is honest), I would have preferred him to abstain from commenting, this is given his position within BeethovenX and the potential conflict of interests that could emerge.
My concern here is removing the FF status from Hexagon to then offering the Avalanche market to Beets. Balancermaxis have enough voting delegation to technically make this move. I’m sure this is not the case, but for transparency I would have preferred no comments/abstaining from voting in case this RFC goes to snapshot.
All in all, I think the RFC is fair and this is a good discussion to have.
My honest opinion is that Hexagon has not much to lose here as the FF model, as it is today, just gave a rubber stamp which is nice to have but not necessary.
Eventually, what makes the difference is the team and the quality of the product they intend to deliver. And I’m sure Hexagon has both.
One last point: I’ve seen some mentioning regarding brand dilution: In my humble opinion, the FF program also serves to protect Balancer as these agreements prevent any stepping on each other’s toes or vampire attacks. This is particularly true today, as veTokenomics still need to be proven for projects operating multichain like Balancer.
Revoking the status would not prevent the Hexagon team from competing directly with Balancer on other L2s, exactly where it would hurt the most. Not an ideal scenario. Again, just some personal thoughts.