Our explanation for voting "no" to proposal GWG #23

fuckgoogle has voted No to Proposal 23 of Cosmos Hub

We have voted No to proposal #23 on Cosmos Hub.

We believe that a correctly set out GWG will be of huge importance to the Cosmos ecosystem and respect Gavin of Figment Network to be able to champion the group. We took participation in the first GWG call, and think that the idea is more than positive for the whole ecosystem. You may see our feedback to the call on the Cosmos forum.

The reason we decided to vote No is more about the community pool itself and our view on its current use.

We believe that the community pool should be used for the sake of the community. This does not mean that we think that governance isn’t important. However, at this point and time, we fully agree with Kwun of Forbole that the community pool must first be used to those who need it most.

At this point, the idea of the GWG is raw and still needs polishing. Nonetheless, We are going to take part in the group and help with what we are able. This is our mature and committed stance to help to make the governance group a listener of the community first of all.

At the proposed rates the community pool will be drained rapidly. Previous experiences with governance (both our personal experience on-chain and historical off-chain experiences) show that governance shouldn’t be paid more than development.

Many open source developers commit to developing Cosmos and should be rewarded first hand, as they are those that keep the ecosystem alive. This does not mean that the work of the GWG shouldn’t be awarded, on the contrary, we believe that any work should be awarded proportionally, and Gavin has already proved to be the correct person to champion the working group.

Of course, the proposal has passed already and whatever we suggest now is too late. We want to make our stance clear and be as transparent as possible about our vote. We are, yet, just a small validator, but that just means that we should be participating more in the ecosystem and try to do our best to develop it further. We believe that decentralization should be decentralized.

Our suggestion for the working group will be to have a role of listeners and feedback collectors, who are prepared to go into the community (the broader Cosmos community, not just the hub) and listen to what token holders propose. Formalize that feedback, present it to the GWG, which in its turn can come up with proposals for the community to decide upon. We believe this will pave the way to a broader engagement and a higher rate of participation.

Check out our GitHub folder for Cosmos proposals and join our TG channel for discussions!