You are an entrepreneur with a long-term vision and insight.
Voting no. Let the free markets do their thing. If we alter the value proposition of owning land, I do not expect the land/mana ratio to stay fixed for long. Unless of course markets exhibit that there’s no value to having VP…
1 Like
I will be voting no on this proposal, and I will be outlining my reasoning below.
Important notes:
- Our delegated VP is 100% from LAND delegations.
- At a surface level, one would assume it is in the best interests of our delegators to see this proposal advanced.
- At a deeper level, one would see that it is in the best interests of our delegators to see this proposal halted in its tracks.
- VP Inequity is a serious problem in the DAO, and this proposal will only make it worse.
- We are far too distracted, disconnected, and disenfranchised right now to make such structural/system-oriented decisions.
The DAO is not in a good place right now, and I know I’m not the only one who sees it, knows it, and feels it.
There’s a lot of reasoning here in relation to this proposal that is dangerous. VP Inequity has long been a clear issue in the DAO, which has led to a lot of mistrust, infighting, and questionable decision-making over the last two years or so. Passing this proposal will only prove to further feed that mistrust, infighting, and possibility of more questionable (if not nefarious) decisions to be taken.
We need less inequality in our voting system, not more. Anyone who has held a large amount of VP for some time, and aimed to use it to advance the DAO’s interests (as opposed to their own), would understand how dangerous this proposal is; and I won’t be surprised if several people ‘give up’ and leave as a consequence of this proposal.
A few replies to some comments made here:
This reasoning is scary af @InJesterr. We’re talking about systems here, and systems should be as human-proof as possible. One cannot put their trust in individuals when attempting to balance and build a system. Your reasoning here is that I will counter-vote; but I, alongside all of you, am a fallible human, who will make mistakes, will make bad decisions, and eventually, will fade out of the DAO in one shape or form. This is the case for almost everyone in this conversation. Whilst it is uncertain if the DAO’s functionality will survive that long, it’s documentation definitely will.
Take a moment to forget the faces, ignore the identities at play, and look at this system as one that requires balancing. Good and bad players are found in every system, and yet, the system itself should be balanced despite them.
It’s not just this. We’re so distracted at the moment; trying to tackle 100 different things at once. We lack leadership. We lack direction. We lack a collective vision.
Changing the balance of VP poses a large risk, which can only lead to the community being more fractured, disorganized, and distrustful.
From the perspective of the long-term, we can wait. We don’t need to change VP now. I challenge you to try to repair bridges; and have constructive conversations about key ways we can improve our systems. Aim at rebuilding trust among each other in relation to the priorities of the DAO.
Believe it or not, although we might be in the most precarious times we’ve ever been in as a community there is hope.
Why is there hope?
I get messages every few days from people in the community asking me what I feel about the DAO. Asking me if I’m staying. Asking if I’m leaving. Asking what I think, and if there’s hope. You know who you are, and you are many.
I know my answers have been negative at times, but seeing this proposal, and people’s reactions to it (alongside the rallying of votes and thought-out reasoning) reminds me: There’s still hope.
There’s still hope because the idea and vision of a decentralized decision-making system, where there’s no central authority dictating the will of the people is still alive. There’s still hope, because several of you, despite being jaded, tired, overwhelmed, and burned out, are still here, fighting on, hoping that this vision can be fulfilled. There are still many of you who feel responsible enough to open up this page, log in, think about these issues, share your thoughts, and have your say.
I’m currently writing this message on my little sister’s 18th birthday, whilst being on a family holiday, and I know I am not alone when I say my participation in this space comes from pure passion and interest.
So, why should this vote be halted?
We have far bigger fish to fry. This is not the time to change the balance of VP; this is the time to talk about vision, direction, and a shared ‘WHY’ that we can all hold close to heart.
For the first time in a long time, I feel far more comfortable voting in the DAO, and a part of that is due to the delegations that were rolled out, and the minimization of inequity in our system.
I really do feel we must be diligent in our decision-making; ensuring we’re not distracting ourselves every week with a new proposal that can flip everything upside down. There are several governance ideas that should be prioritized at this moment, and amplifying the voting power of LAND/MANA/L1/Names/any other VP Source is definitely not it.
2 Likes
Vote however you like its your vp in the end, thank you for your explanation I really do admire that you took the time with objective statements!
In the end our opinions are different from one another but as a community I believe you did your duty elaborating with a reasonable explanation!
1 Like
Should the LAND-to-MANA Ratio Be Revised ?
This proposal is now in status: FINISHED.
Voting Results:
- Yes 32% 7,891,430 VP (69 votes)
- No 66% 15,592,347 VP (70 votes)
- Invalid question/options 2% 566,454 VP (4 votes)
Should the LAND-to-MANA Ratio Be Revised ?
This proposal has been REJECTED by a DAO Committee Member (0xbef99f5f55cf7cdb3a70998c57061b7e1386a9b0)
