vision paper nor the SENT phase 2 plan. How can I take your document seriously as a community member who voiced his discontent with the SC not joining community channels for years, both as a community and team member?
What do you think I don't understand?
Your last 2 interactions with Jon and Peter show a lack of understanding when it comes to how phase 2 wallets work, notably the SC one (!), and the governance of the ASI Alliance
Of course we don't understand how the SC wallet works because it was never given to us. It's all managed by the foundation behind closed doors
i really think its a leap to think that 1.5% of the supply of agix would be “handed over”
The paper says it's to be allocated. The fact that we never get it while the allocation to the foundation does happen... Like this stuff should have been automated on chain a while back instead of the foundation controlling everything manually. But that's not the issue. I don't believe the foundation is malevolent. I just think they're making a mistake rushing this
allocated for use by, not handling of seed phrases - its a reach - anyway, lets agree to disagree
As I said, lack of understanding...
Which goes to support the argument that this has been rushed and more time should be given for parties to discuss, align, solve misunderstandings, etc
Why so hostile? Daniel seems to be acting in good faith.
the document did not really read as such to me… but hey
Idk, seems like a lot of dumb cuntery to me
There's nothing hostile about refuting false allegations, I've read and discussed the phase 2 plan countless times here, it's just appealing that a SC member doesn't understand what it entails
It is like waiting before leaving a house in flames because the contract with the landlord has some misunderstandings.
It was primarily written by grace who comes from a culture where feedback is given very bluntly and negatively. Very different from say USA culture
😂 a spade is still a spade if you call it a big spoon innit
at the end of the document, every “positive” was offered a reason why its not positive - but the same was not offered in an unbiased arguement, explaning why the negative may infact be incorrect - i see that as bad faith
The way you communicated seemed hostile to me. But I am not aware of whatever history might be between you of course. As an outsider it seemed hostile, good to know that you didn't mean it to be perceived like that
No worries, that's the community member in me talking and people can (or cannot) confirm that's how I normally talk about serious matters, no history with Daniel and no hard feelings, it's just this serious
i can confirm - hes always busting my balls as a community member 😛
We do not claim to be unbiased. The end of the document was a response to claims we disagreed with.
Обсуждают сегодня