Atmosfearful Main takeaway for me was that the team acknowledges that the current setup is centralized and that they want to go towards more decentralization. Additionally they have made it a part of this KIP to investigate how to go about this. I was also unaware of the 3 of 5 multisig previously so as long as that's the case this KIP is just adding a clarification to the existing system instead of changing anything.
I'm still on the fence about the KIP because I think there needs to be a deadline specified by which the roadmap to decentralization needs to be formalized and put into a new KIP. Otherwise it can create perverse incentives which may keep delaying the roadmap.
mak
- May 18, 2022
- Joined Feb 15, 2022
- Edited
I believe that decentralization is key to the long term success of KlimaDAO even though it sacrifices short term agility. Having a central point of failure in the form of a CEO is a great strategy for a company but it is not well suited for a DAO. If the core team wants more agility in terms of decision making when it comes to certain aspects then they can bring forward separate KIPs focused particularly on those specific aspects instead of this general all-encompassing KIP.
I will vote against this KIP.
EDIT: After the clarifications made in today's call I might have to reconsider my vote. Still on the fence about it though.Before I can make up my mind about this KIP I would like to get some clarity from team regarding the following points:
Why is it bad if people unstake their klima, sell into the pool and then bond BCT or other bond assets? In the end this increases the amount of carbon locked in the klima treasury. All we had to worry about was the downward price action it puts on KLIMA but that will be largely addressed by the inverse bonds being introduced soon. Additionally locking more carbon and taking it out of LP pools increases the price of these carbon assets. If KlimaDAO still wants to achieve the stated goal of increasing the cost of carbon offsets then won't reducing the incentives interfere with this goal? We all understood that KLIMA holders will indirectly subsidize onchain carbon credits to achieve that goal and we agreed with it as the traditional market needed to be disrupted. Are we stopping/reducing that subsidy and letting the traditional market decide how much we can disrupt them?
Finally I would like to ask the team if they truly think there's no other way of achieving the intended long term stability via alternate methods such as stake locking etc? IMO 10 day lock to unstake will be enough to ensure majority of bond inflows comes from outside the system and doesn't put downward pressure on price.
Thanks