Thread by @KleomedesDAO

1/ @KleomedesDAO was one of the first validators to vote YES on #Prop16.
Since then, new information has been brought to light by other validators and the $JUNO community.
However, our opinion on Prop 16 remains the same.

2/ We are not trying to solve a philosophical problem.
We are not trying to police what's right or wrong.
We are trying to solve a practical issue.

3/ As of now, there is a single wallet with 10% of JUNO's voting power.
Is this how de-centralization is supposed to work?

4/ The fair drop was gamed - plain and simple.
People who are caught up in the wording of the airdrop criteria are forgetting that the issue of power concentration remains.

5/ Kleomedes is simply looking at things from a practical perspective.
Juno was conceived to be a fully decentralized network, and a wallet with 10% of voting power poses an enormous risk to the long term vision of our network.

6/ We have the tools to fix this problem, therefore we should.

7/ The biggest objections to Prop 16, are based on the fact that "code is law" and that blockchain should be "immutable". Neither of these two are completely true.

8/ Even in Bitcoin, code is only law if the majority of hashrate supports it.
In the similar vein, code is law in Juno as long as governance supports it.

9/ We also think, that Prop 16 is an extraordinary measure that is being taken in an extraordinary situation.
Therefore, we do not see this as setting a dangerous precedent for the future.
We are simply reclaiming our vision as a decentralized community.

10/ As always, our delegators are free to vote for themselves if they are in disagreement.

11/ While Juno may not need a leader, we believe the community benefits greatly from @wolfcontract's public opinions. We hope he reconsiders his decision to go silent, as it would be important to continue engaging with the creator of this wonderful community.