From @0xMaha reply to your own post @0xDanko
maybe at a further discount?!?! and stakeDao? MUST address every vebal holder equally at the same rate.
from tetus @belbix response to YOUR post:
When tetuBAL was approved, we were explicitly required to give up upgradeability and restrict our ability to exit veBAL positions as a condition of integration (see governance discussion: [Proposal] Allow Whitelist tetuBAL in Balancer VotingEscrow - #21 by solarcurve ). We accepted these constraints in good faith to align with the system.
0xDanko:
I have no idea what you are talking about “misleading marketing campaign”
Highly recommend you have a very good idea of what is being talked about.
Long-term veBAL holders locked under the reasonable expectation created by the smart-contract mechanics and years of “Earn passively on Balancer” marketing. The complete sunset of economic rights represents a material change to the original proposition with clear consequences and significant implications to the DAO, for locked capital, governance trust and fiduciary-like duties of decision-makers.
This is a significant and major civil risk for everyone voting for the original proposal.
These are not “bashing nonsense”. Please make an effort to respect fellow community members and adhere to the forum guidelines. Threads 7001 and 7005 are legitimate governance concerns.
Again, I welcome a substantive response rather than procedural deferrals.
The community records here are to be preserved.