The tone of these measures come across as not well thought through / sloppy, which can easily be interpreted as hiding information at a high risk moment for the industry.
MEASURE 1: why does the answer have to be binary and not a spectrum? For example, why can’t you simply provide a sliding scale and allow the community to set the rewards at their most desirable amount, then weight individual settings based on their governance stake? Seems silly to provide two options.
Nevertheless, I don’t know how anyone can fairly vote without an honest, straightforward explanation on the basis for the change in the first place. On one hand, I get the natural tendency to suggest there should be no Status Quo option, but if there’s a genuine, reasonable argument to be made to cut rewards for six months that improves the long term viability of the chain, then the Foundation should have no problem articulating that logic and win over the community. Yet, the Foundation hasn’t provided a detailed explanation to date. This comes across as disingenuous. Is this to fill a short term financial budget gap (which honestly is understandable given the current macro environment)? Are you planning to allocate the rewards savings to node runners? Are you simply trying to optimize / test governance participation at a lower rewards rate, potentially freeing up long-term capital in the future for other focus areas? No one knows whether this is a Measure based on short term decision making or to boost the long term competitiveness and that’s a problem. The lack of transparency will lead folks to conclude it’s a short term headwind, or dip completely.
Just be honest: spell out the thought process for the cuts rather than some terse, heavy handed decision packaged as “decentralized governance”. Everyone on here is investing in a frickin blockchain, the riskiest type of startups out there with 10 year roadmaps. No one’s expecting Google level performance immediately (be that financial or product). But what drives a structural loss of confidence is when trust erodes because there’s no honest communication in Foundation decision making.
It would be absolutely insane for any public company to slash their dividend in half without providing an explanation, then in the next breadth ask shareholders whether or not they want the 50% or 60% option in the name of collaborative community decision making lol.