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.
Yes, I obviously understand that the majority of BAL voters approved Hexagon and rejected Symmetric. There is no well-defined FF framework, which is why I’m bringing this issue up. I laid forth a preliminary list of things that I would consider requirements in the Symmetric thread, but they have not been formalized.
Why do you think this? If BAL token holders didn’t “dig enough” , what was the cause of rejecting the Symmetric FF agreement then?
Did I perform an exit poll of why each voter voted as they did? No. But in my opinion there was a hell of a lot more discussion on the Symmetric proposal because Hexagon passed. See my post in that thread here. In that forum post, you argue that the primary backlash to Symmetric is capital allocation while I argue it’s the lack of product. It seems that we disagree on that point.
FWIW, I also had an issue with the capital allocation, but my primary concern was (and continues to be) lack of demonstrated product.
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.
I’m glad you joined the conversation here, but to be fair, couldn’t he make the same exact argument against you?
For full disclosure:
The Hexagon team has offered Andrea a token allocation equal to the 0,0012% of the total token supply as a thank you gesture.
Regarding this:
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.
Sure, it prevents stepping on each other’s toes, but doesn’t approving one FF implicitly prevent/deter other teams from doing so on a given chain? What if there was another team that was considering launching on Avalanche but saw we already gave that rubber stamp away? What if that team was able to execute more quickly/effectively? It shouldn’t be a race to who can apply first, but who can deliver first/better.