Unless there’s big enough capital comes in or significant narrative changes happen it is not likely.
He and Chris have been telling negative stories about EOS governance for years. They don't care about the price of EOS and will continue to do so until they can exert their influence in governance.
That capital isn't going to come in because of governance changes though, at least in my opinion. The catalyst for capital coming in is going to be something that brings value back to the capital that's being invested - and then, once some of that capital is represented as tokens, those token holders may have an interest in affecting governance. The capital has to come first though. It has to be motivated by some other non-altruistic purpose besides governance. That capital needs something that provides more value than what it could otherwise earn by selling votes. This industry, for better and worse, is saturated with people who want to make money.
I think what Hahn wants to express is that changing the governance can increase the TVL on the EOS chain, encourage more high-quality ecological teams (like Greymass, EOS Support, DefiBOX, EOS Nation etc.) building and enter the top 21 BPs, thereby optimizing the overall development of EOS. Therefore, EOS has a stronger upward momentum. The nature of capital is profit-seeking and has a sensitive sense of smell, so they will enter EOS.
That capital isn't going to come because of governance, when there is nothing to govern, agreed. But large amounts of capital aren't going to flow into an opaque ecosystem where it isn't safe, either, unless the risk/reward ratio is high enough. We're not providing one or the other. This requires a narrative change at the very least, which requires real consistent marketing. Ideally though, that narrative change would be based on real fundamental governance changes, that can be promoted as providing transparency, accountability, recourse, communication, and legitimacy. We can define our terms, but if they're inconsistent with reality, our feet will be held to the fire. Claiming exchanges are "proxies" of their actual token holders, is lying to ourselves, and apparently everyone knows it's BS. This needs to change.
They aren't "proxies" of the token holders, the token holders have effectively surrendered their governance rights by keeping their tokens on the exchanges - just like any other token. Does anyone have any example, of any token in a similar situation, where the custodian actually acts as a delegate/proxy and solicites the will of their users to effect governance? I don't know of any - and in all situations I'm aware of, it's just like EOS.
I agree, they aren't proxies. To be a proxy, the owner has to transfer the relevant powers to you. For the token holder to surrender something, they should be informed of their ownership of that thing first, and sign over the governance rights, otherwise the exchanges are infact acting without the owners permission, which would be illegal in any other situation. I'd think an exchange wouldn't be able to take out a loan from a bank using assets on its platform as collateral. They're not their's.
Is it a right thing?
Personally I don't think so, but apparently many token holders do. My opinions don't line up with theirs, and that's fine.
Thank you for being honest! Actually I believe you're going to be the single most beneficiary of this change because you have true community's support for your unceased contribution.
The change means that you don't have to play the game we all have played so far.
Обсуждают сегодня