It is an important distinction between a proposal with an implementer/builder to enable the fee switch vs a future proposal that seeks to provide guidance. Would a16z’s future proposal have someone who can implement its fee switch solution?
One of my worries is that the overhang of legal uncertainty is being used to kick the ball down the road. Governance is deflated when there is inaction. This can be seen in corporate governance structures all the way up to large/small country governments.
Looking back at the last major thread on the fee switch here many ideas are put out as uses. The great thing about the fee switch is it opens possibilities.
The idea of an opt in, and having the burden of tax go to the user’s is a good idea. I do not see how this proposal prevents that from happening. Rather it is a first step to creating the infrastructure of contracts to do it in the future. Perhaps the independent parties who are pursuing the fee switch implementation/credit should collaborate.
Is the a16z’s proposal that is to be released next month/June a continuation of the unreleased proposal that was stated to be made available in “late January or early Febuary”?