I have to be intellectually honest, and I recognize that Adriana bring solid arguments in the $ATOM 2.0 discussion in a civil and detailed thread.
I still lean for a YES, because it has been clarified that is a signaling proposal.
But I also respect some of Adriana point.
1/6
I still lean for a YES, because it has been clarified that is a signaling proposal.
But I also respect some of Adriana point.
1/6
https://twitter.com/adriana_kalpa/status/1589004220656922624
I definitely agree with her on the conservative approach with multiple testing before any implementation, by verifying the real revenue generated by #ICS and slowly testing the results of the alloctor/scheduler.
Most of the NWV opposition seems focused on the Treasury/Council system, it's an understandable concern, being a big change to current model. I appreciate that @adriana_kalpa also proposes in her opposition an alternative.
Pheraps this mean that without that specific implementation, Atom 2.0 would pass for sure.
And eventually Treasury/Council could be added and voted later after that the Allocation module and the Scheduler are ready and tested.
And eventually Treasury/Council could be added and voted later after that the Allocation module and the Scheduler are ready and tested.
This could be the meeting point from the two parties, and also is worth to note that can be considered even if Atom 2.0 will pass, since it is a signaling proposal and will require further proposals for the specific upcoming implementations.
I'll end with sharing the best counter thread in support of $ATOM 2.0 that I read recently, that address some of the concerns shared by NWV votes:
https://twitter.com/ssaintleger/status/1588685938372542464?t=bYm--DRsCecQvY9D5i54Hw&s=19
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
