On the one hand 🤚 they have been presented with the idea of an evm token, however on the other ✋ hand given few details, while at the same time told that the enf has already decided that they are going to do it, whatever IT is, which they themselves admit is still undefined?
Shouldn’t that process take place the other way around? Shouldn’t they have elicited feedback, defined the details, presented the proposal, then decided when to proceed if at all?
https://t.me/EOSproject/1907920
I think this was the gist of the feedback that the single biggest contributor outside of Dan expressed in last weeks EOS fireside chat , Aaron Cox, Greymass Anchor wallet dev. I share Aaron’s concern.
Yeah, they then came into this telegram chat and chatted publicly about it. I know that that feedback is being taken into consideration to provide some options now.
+1, and thankfully the ENF is listening to our feedback
If they are listening then they should retract the statement they are going forward with something that is currently unknown to the community
They said many times tokenomics are not finalized… What statement specifically should they’re retract?
That they are issuing an evm token without declaring the details
Yes. It’s 100% finalized that trust EVM will be a seperate token.
And exactly WHAT is the evm token and it’s distribution?
Dude, I keep telling you it’s not finalized.
That’s the point. They are telling us it’s not finalized, yet they are going to be doing it.
they are taking feedback, not commands
Are they being commanded by someone? Who is suggesting that? I'm referring to communication. They communicated half an idea missing lots of key details that has massive implications for the community. It has caught the attention of a shell shocked community.
Обсуждают сегодня