Hey @gil I see you have posted your comments both here and the Discord governance discussion channel wanted to respond to each point here:
-
I am only concerned with the goals and current focus of the Liqwid DAO which means shipping a securely built V3 and scaling it alongside current and upcoming products. I do not have the time nor bandwith to focus on other DAOs and especially not to the reactions other DAO community members have on their own governance matters.
-
This proposal is directly in line with how Liqwid DAO should operate. Every economic decision should be ratified with an onchain vote decided on by LQ holders following a temp check period of community discussion.
-
Yes the core development team does require funding to deliver V3, ship the products in development and continue regular operations for V2. Currently the protocol is experiencing decreasing month over month interest income revenues with active loan amounts reducing each week and new loan volume not keeping pace with the active loan reductions. This is even with significantly lower interest rates in stablecoin markets than the protocol has historically experienced.
-
With all due respect to your contributions to Liqwid DAO this is your opinion on avoiding negativity. This proposal is very much required if Liqwid DAO is to remain focused on delivering long-term growth the same way Proposal 110 which refocused the DAO on fiscal sustainability was critically important. If the Liqwid DAO ecosystem does not believe a focus on long-term growth is necessary we can simply put V2 in maintenance mode, not ship any new products nor V3 and enable the core team to go and focus on other work.
-
LQ emissions for the 1st year of the protocol’s mainnet were mostly distributed to ADA market suppliers, this is a fact. Pointing it out for full context in this proposal is necessary to provide some background on how Liqwid arrived at the position it is in today. I am not sure there’s really anything more to it than this.