I am personally in conflict about this first on-chain governance vote. I think it is important to ensure ongoing development of the protocol and therefore I tend to support the proposal. generally this is the right approach.
unfortunately there are some points and questions that tell me this proposal shouldn’t be accepted at this stage of the project:
- it seems like there are/were some problems with using ledger nano on the base æpp at the moment and when I remember right @vlad.chain confirmed that problem (but I can’t find his response anymore so probably it got deleted?)
- IMO it is too early and we have way too less time to decide the outcome of such an important proposal
- IMO the first proposal should be a test-run with a proposal that hasn’t that much impact (e.g. letting the stakeholders decide which features and tools in the backlog should be developed first)
- we haven’t discussed about that proposal beforehand (it was just announced and now we need to pick a side)
- e.g. I don’t really know how the funds will be distributed and who exactly will receive the funds (core developers, community contributions, startups developing on top of æternity, …)
I really love this project and I think we can be really successful. I also think it is a good approach to support development around æternity and ensure the development-funding by giving a reasonable percentage of the mining-rewards to the developers. I just think it wasn’t thought out well, not discussed beforehand and therefore it is not the right time to vote for the proposal.