Agree in that we are likely going to lead the way in this space and legal help is going to be key in ensuring adoption and as we all know regulation is coming whether we like it or not. I think getting ahead of the issue is a smart move
on trust -
but you are organizing hte proposal and selecting the lawyers to run the show, etc.
you are even proposing a “board” - this is where decentralization goes to die.
what if your board sucks at policy, etc.? then we are stuck with the sell pressure of $30 million UNI, probably more bc its clearly going way over $100 usd …
again, its quite immature and makes it sound like amateur hour that ur asking for $30 mm up front without the ability to really quantify anything but instead fear mongering. we all get it, we rly do, but what you are asking for is ridiculous and makes you look silly and out of touch, especially including a WEF member on your board LOL! like you think this would sit well with crypto people who are mostly anarchists and hate the establishment and constantly meme the WEF you will own nothing? like wow, you’re kinda out of touch here harvard bros.
just to be clear, uni v1, v2 and v3 were built for about $10 mm total, maybe less. devs make you rich, lawyers generally ruin things …
Leshner said to start w/ $1 mm and prove your worth, the fact that you are pushing back on this is quite sad and really shows you’re out of touch.
again, what if you guys suck? then you get to keep $30 mm? which of these lawyers have successully lobbied any governments for crypto? like c’mon, meet us half way and stop fear mongering. I’d rather roll the dice w Coin Center alone (which has been quite excellent) than absorb all that sell pressure.
I’m here to get rich and change the world. I am NOT here to fund lawyers.
Agreed, made a video about this. We need to have this discussion in the Consensus though, and try and get big Crypto people to start talking about this.
I’m trying but Im a really small channel.
We have received some level of interest/commitment from several qualified individuals who will be made public if this passes the snapshot.
this comment evinces exactly the wrong attitude and shows why this proposal is horribly structured
DAOs are about transparency, yet you have already cut some tentative deals with ‘several qualified individuals’ to be on the board and potentially benefit from this warchest. How do we know those ‘several qualified individuals’ are not also among the vocal supporters of this proposal in the forum and on twitter, thus astroturfing with ulterior motives?
The proposal and your responses to criticism do not show the good faith efforts of someone who takes conflicts of interest, nuance and governance seriously. I hate to say it, but they are characterized by the classic lawyerly blarney-smart misdirections, strategic elisions and gaslighting so sadly typical of the profession. It makes this proposal feel like a money/power grab by a small cadre of extrinsically affiliated (through Blockchain Association etc.) would-be ‘policy-makers’ who want to up their clout in D.C.
Kill this proposal with fire and make a proposal that actually puts the power of influencing lawmakers into DAO members’ hands.
1000% IN SUPPORT of this approach. As someone who is at a bank and is seeing the development of CBDC’s first hand (Cannot disclose details, refer to official release documents) DEFI MUSTTTT be prepared to present their undeniable case. We must think beyond legalities. We need to think in public campaign and advertising terms. We need to Re-own the voice of the people and insulate defi against the onslaught of misunderstood attacks and false assumptions. I fear many simply cannot grasp the bredth of it’s opportunities. We need to fight every day for Decentralized Finance. That is my personal opinion and not that of anyone I associate with professionally. But I strongly believe this to be true. Have a super happy day guys. Love each one of you, even when we disagree. Let’s get it!
“As someone who is at a bank”? Yeah you already disqualified yourself.
The purpose of Defi is just that Decentralized Financing, we do not need or want an organization to determine what we do.
Yes exactly. That is what I stand for.
Which is why I am saying what I am saying.
Central authorities should NEVER have reign over anything in DEFI. EVER.
But interoperability between off chain and on chain ecosystems is already present and will continue to grow. WE need to have advocates for Defi within institutions. I was obsessed with blockchain way before I entered the banking realm. And that is actually what prompted my entrance into that industry. So that in moments EXACTLY like these, I can advocate and motivate for our side, from within, if they are proposing potentially dangerous regulations or are completely missinformed and may make a decision that effects our space in a negative way because of that misinformation. You would be incredibly surprised how little most of these people know. AND…
That’s why as representatives of defi we must empower ourselves by upvoting proposals like the one above. My apologies if my last remark came off inflated, that was not my intention. Hope that clarifies
No problem, but you do realize who these professionals they want to put in are right?
They WEF, World Economic Forum. The same institution that literarily is pushing for the great reset (it’s on their site) stating that by 2030 we will own nothing and be happy.
Im sure you mean well, but that power corrupts. You may not have malicious intent but I do not want to set precedent. They even said “if we get this through we hope to encourage other defi protocols”, what do you think this is going to do?
Me personally if this authoritarian proposal passes this consensus phase. I am un-staking all of my coins from all protocols and using coin base to swap all of ETH based tokens/coins to BTC or ADA.
I believe that if these World Economic Forum authoritarians get their disgusting greedy fingers in Defi the ETH network will collapse.
I completely understand and we cannot let that happen. At any costs. Diem = Dangerous VERY VERY VERY DANGEROUS.
While I agree with the necessity of lobbying, I disapprove of the direction this proposition has taken so far.
If we end up paying millions for lobbying, we need:
- Experts, with a provable record of past successes in lobbying.
- A clear and detailed roadmap. Why are we even assumed to have an opinion on this project when nothing precise has been detailed?
- Accountability. The names of everyone involved should be known before we are even asked our opinion.
- Milestones, and rough estimates of how long each step is expected to take.
In all honesty, I’d be willing to invest significantly more than $30M in lobbying, but this just isn’t it.
Let’s not settle on a vague 20 lines post.
Thats great! Thanks for the honesty thats how we are going to strengthen this community. Assuming we had all of those things in a lobbyist, how would you improve the strategy. I felt like it was a step in the right direction to start thinking about but I’m just one person. This is great feedback
In my opinion the problem has been taken precisely backwards.
Here the proposition is to “send 30 millions to the first persons who happen to have brought up the topic of lobbying, and hope that they will happen to be the best at it. Plan will be determined later.”
Instead, we should first determine exactly what we want to do, and only then dedicate an appropriate budget. The lobbyists we hire should the most qualified persons to do the job.
We should first define what we want to do and only then decide how to do it.
Solid. Love it. I’d love to work with you and anyone else that would like to discuss to propose a refinements to the direction proposed above, then get a temp gauge from the community? I think your modification to the direction would resonate with people and obviously can be built upon. I’d love to setup a working document or something we could all contribute to.
Maybe some type of working session or round table discussion could help us? Whatever works best for you and the community. I think the general lobbying discussion warrants further discussion and refinement. Frankly, I agree we need a thorough breakdown and document that to present our case to any lobbyists. know some south Florida lobbyists which could be helpful due to Miami being so crypto friendly. But we should finalize it TOGETHER as a community.
What do you think?
Let me fully understand this and get back to you
Sounds like a plan