TL;DR: BRI initiative is a bail-out of AE team funds from a damage caused by inflation which they introduced at the expense of all the other token holders. Instead of focusing on creating a sound crypto-currency with a sound token-economy, they started to act like a central bank, playing with monetary policy (inflation) and bailing-out themselves when required. They should realize there are many other innovative tokens with no inflation at all (via a constant token base or a staking rate that incentive holding).
Is it true that the First On-Chain Governance Vote, the historical one is about bailing-out AE-team funds (probably called a “community fund” next)? Seriously?
I totally agree with xiahui135. I am against BRI as the real cause is the centralized decision of introducing GIGANTIC INFLATION. It was not a forward thinking decision as the condition of the crypto-market and enormous competition in terms of technology and token-economics increased. Some project abandoned inflation at all (Waves). Some of them introduced it later (Lisk).
When they act honest, the token price increased reflects increased level of confidence. Only the most honest projects will survive as the development of protocol and ecosystem of these projects accelerates the most and left behind the others. At the end the only source of value in crypto-economy is confidence and trust/trustlessness.
The BRI initiative is driven by a first big mistake - HUGE INFLATION which caused nothing but destroying a value of a token for nothing. And as the price imploded so the dev-stake (20%). AE team tries to repair that mistake by sucking more money, but first they have to admit that they never asked community regarding inflation rate. Why they want to have a support for BRI now, when they didn’t care about burning all initial AE stake-holders and value of the token?
I personally think the AE team decided to introduce a huge inflation to get the initial money from mining for themselves, but when it failed and destroyed a value of token, they want to “ask a community” to support BRI initiative to get back what they plan to, moving the mistakes to that community (which they promise to care of) with destroyed value of tokens.
Of course it leads to CENTRALIZATION:
- Destroying a value of AE tokens by a centralized decision of introducing HUGE INFLATION for nothing back (or even lead to centralized mining operation).
- Asking for more AE by introducing “decentralized voting” (BRI initiative).
This is kind of immoral to do this in such a short time, doesn’t build a confidence at all. The watering down initial investment of ICO participants, but want to bail-out (increase) their own stake. We should bear the consequences equally and then, in the future, BRI initiative would be an interesting idea, but only after they (AE team) gain confidence and take the responsibility of their actions and not only bailing-out themselves.
I should say, before they ask for more money to so-called dev-fund they should fix the effects of their solely decision of introducing huge inflation, but it can’t be done. Unbelievable. They wish to have (or build) a mature community, but only resort to them when things are going wrong.