Mo Z. D.S., [Dec 26, 2022 at 11:54 AM] You're right in that "voters don't make these types of decisions, they are seeking a return on their investment" This however feels like a mistake on the token holder's part in not understanding the fundamentals of DPOS. This was never meant to be a passive investment or speculative vehicle, but a utility and a governance token to secure the network. The above point led me and leads me to believe that the final end user was always meant to be enterprise, companies leveraging it on behalf of their users. That would align their interests in holding significant amounts of tokens with also making sure that the top 21 BPs were the best stewards of the chain. Theoretically, if this happened as you're hypothesizing, I don't see a problem with governance flowing through a human layer before receiving BP rewards. If the argument is that BPs would not be incentivized to be able to reach agreements or trade votes outside of the public eye with as much ease as they do now, I don't see this as a negative. Is one proxy run by Eden(Eden consisting of people interested in EOS Governance) better than one proxy run by people we don't know, who's interests have been shown to be first and foremost their own until recently, when they coincidentally aligned with those of active community members, I'd like to believe so. Whether the Eden Proxy deserves anything, is up to the token holders. Is Eden ready for this? It's a Lite Paper currently building towards this, the idea is that once the responsibility falls on its shoulders, it should be ready. I'd definitely say there are many issues currently of high priority, and we can walk and chew gum. I can appreciate how some BPs and entities are trying to do much more than walk and chew gum, and this just becomes one more thing to juggle that they don't really need or want right now. All I can say is that I'm sorry, this is supposed to be a decentralized community where many different things can and should be worked on by different teams simultaneously. Greater cooperation/integration/inclusion would help us all row in the same relative direction if this is valued as of greater importance, otherwise we can't just be told: "Do something...but not that, something else...I don't have time to tell you what to do, figure it out...but not that." We all recognize that there are very few whales controlling enough tokens to make decisions, be they East Asian or B1. To act as if this handful of people shouldn't run it, this other handful is better, and paint this in the context of more or less centralization, and I believe you framed it on the call very well in describing centralization as a spectrum, this isn't really moving it that much farther one way or the other, it's just changing who's making the decisions. If theres enough bandwidth at the ENF, I'd be for fixing the underlying incentives that are all out of whack and add Tokenomics to this too 🙏 🙏 🙏

https://t.me/EOSproject/1966366

You're right in that "voters don't make these types of decisions, they are seeking a return on their investment"

This however feels like a mistake on the token holder's part in not understanding the fundamentals of DPOS. This was never meant to be a passive investment or speculative vehicle, but a utility and a governance token to secure the network.

The above point led me and leads me to believe that the final end user was always meant to be enterprise, companies leveraging it on behalf of their users. That would align their interests in holding significant amounts of tokens with also making sure that the top 21 BPs were the best stewards of the chain.

Theoretically, if this happened as you're hypothesizing, I don't see a problem with governance flowing through a human layer before receiving BP rewards.

If the argument is that BPs would not be incentivized to be able to reach agreements or trade votes outside of the public eye with as much ease as they do now, I don't see this as a negative.

Is one proxy run by Eden(Eden consisting of people interested in EOS Governance) better than one proxy run by people we don't know, who's interests have been shown to be first and foremost their own until recently, when they coincidentally aligned with those of active community members, I'd like to believe so.

Whether the Eden Proxy deserves anything, is up to the token holders.

Is Eden ready for this? It's a Lite Paper currently building towards this, the idea is that once the responsibility falls on its shoulders, it should be ready.

I'd definitely say there are many issues currently of high priority, and we can walk and chew gum. I can appreciate how some BPs and entities are trying to do much more than walk and chew gum, and this just becomes one more thing to juggle that they don't really need or want right now.

All I can say is that I'm sorry, this is supposed to be a decentralized community where many different things can and should be worked on by different teams simultaneously. Greater cooperation/integration/inclusion would help us all row in the same relative direction if this is valued as of greater importance, otherwise we can't just be told:

"Do something...but not that, something else...I don't have time to tell you what to do, figure it out...but not that."

We all recognize that there are very few whales controlling enough tokens to make decisions, be they East Asian or B1. To act as if this handful of people shouldn't run it, this other handful is better, and paint this in the context of more or less centralization, and I believe you framed it on the call very well in describing centralization as a spectrum, this isn't really moving it that much farther one way or the other, it's just changing who's making the decisions.

If theres enough bandwidth at the ENF, I'd be for fixing the underlying incentives that are all out of whack and add Tokenomics to this too 🙏 🙏 🙏