Great conversation here.
It seems like the biggest pushback is a drop in BAL APY. BAL is a governance token, not a form of payment. It’s almost guaranteed that this shift would drop BAL APY’s in the short term, but I personally think that’s ok to help incentivize other pools to migrate and start using Balancer V2 out of the gate.
Just as BAL Staking was proposed to further reward BAL holders in V1, I can very much imagine a situation in which we analyze the amount of rewards (or in this case slots) BAL is receiving once 100% of rewards have migrated from V1 to V2.
The hard truth is that no migration process is going to be perfect, and this is a proposal that has been given a signifciant amount of time and though over the past few months.
These community members are spending more time on Balancer than anyone in the world. While the multisig signers have great signal, almost all are running their own companies and should not be tasked with overseeing something as important as BAL liquidity mining.
I hear the conerns about Ballers having too much power, however all of these actors have formed completely naturally and shown they are here for the right reasons.
I’d ask that everyone respect how nuanced a change of this magnitude is, and recognize that this is the first iteration, just as BAL V1 rewards were before the implementation of different factors.
I’m also eager to see how BAL tokenholders vote, and would look forward to seeing how the comments in this forum would translate to a Snapshot vote given how much higher voter turn out has been since the introduction of the govFactor.