No worries. I’m open to complete transparency and the truth about my background and motivation. :))
I’m not sure I follow here, could you explain why would think that? I’ve never had any issues with the decentralisation path balancer is undertaking.
In regards to hexagon, I think you missed the part where I mentioned that they were pushing users to bridge BAL during our veBAL launch. A period were we as the main protocol are attempting to achieve a high percentage of locked BAL. Could you explain what part of this is friendly?
There are many aspects that determine the success of a FF, It’s the team yes. Market conditions also help greatly yes. The is also however, how they interact with the existing balancer ecosystem.
There cannot be all take and no give and revenue share is not the only method in which this principle applies. It applies to collaboration and communication for the betterment of the protocol as a whole too.
With regards to forks on any network as well, a blatant copy paste is going to be called out. It’s much worse when it’s a bad one, see Embr.
Anyways, I’m all for growing the balancer ecosystem but unfortunately you can’t let low quality effort dominate the growth, it’s simply not a good look and at some point, all that low quality will fall like a house of cards.
I’m not sure which personal relationships you may be referring to, I mostly have professional relationships with people here as a core engineer to balancer hehe.
apart from that hey, nothing personal here. The reference to attitudes was obviously not referred to you.
And also, I’m coming out from this discussion like if the only thing I did was Friendly Forks proposals and whatnot but there is plenty of evidence that this is not the case.
Regardless, I’m kinda tired of having to justify my work left and right for a few bucks and plus, I find no pleasure having these long and honestly non-constructive discussions.
All I can say is that I would have worked for free if felt part of something bigger, in the end I got 200BAL liquid for the longest time and never really complained. This has never been a matter of money. At least for me.
It’s easier for us to find common ground and move this conversation forward than try to highlight differences. There have been some comments by @ZenDragon about finding a way for the SPs to co-exist and this is a conversation that we should focus on.
Zen has made some good points and we can probably continue from there. I believe that co-existing models are possible, along as it remains clear that each SP focuses on different aspects and it might be worth BCG possibly talking with ORB to distinguish these differences.
The recent comments and discussions, generally not very constructive, that took place in this thread, caused a strong demotivation among the team members which prompted us to reconsider the decision of bringing the above proposal to a vote.
Also, the intention to avoid at all costs crossfire to prevent internal casualties (that’s how it was sold to me at least), actually produced exactly that: an internal cannibalisation, everyone walking around with a price tag on their head while playing musical chairs. The dismantling of the once called “BalancerDAO” was inevitable under those conditions and we saw it happening, in slow motion, with hands tight.
I believe that, even if the proposal was going to pass, it would have been impossible to heal all the wounds and the damage caused by overly large mouths. This would have been like locking a divorced couple under the same roof while pretending it’s all fine. NGMI.
Balancer needs both leadership and decentralisation. But leadership is not code, is not a jpeg you can buy on opensea and cannot be learnt on a reddit post. Decentralisation happens by dilution of voting powers. I will personally look at those two aspects going forward.
Meanwhile I would like to personally thank all those of you who reached out giving support. Really sweet and touching. We did good, even if some didn’t see it.