I think there needs to be a serious re-evaluation of everyone’s role at the Foundation who was involved in finalizing measure #1 option A. There’s plenty of discussions around how potentially detrimental the option itself could be, but not enough concern about how it could even pass deliberations to begin with. It’s not something we should overlook as simply the worse of the two options. It shows a very worrisome level of negligence and poor thought process. This is a cut-throat space in which we should not settle for anything but the best, and therefore we should not allow the same people to continue having an influence at the Foundation, especially in areas which they clearly do not have a firm understanding of.
hank
202
Related topics
| Topic | Replies | Views | Activity | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feedback requested on proposed Q3 2022 Governance Measures | 205 | 14005 | January 8, 2023 | |
| Governance Period 6 Draft Measures - Community Check In | 65 | 5677 | May 17, 2023 | |
| Counterproposal for Q3 2022 Governance Measures | 0 | 800 | August 22, 2022 | |
| Lowering Goverance rewards to fund communtity voted projects | 7 | 611 | May 17, 2024 | |
| Feedback request on proposed Q4 2022 governance measures | 161 | 11956 | June 6, 2023 |