Thread by @Deep_Sea_Iotan

The first governance poll run off for IOTA is in action!

Opposing views, even against the majority should not be silenced or censored. As long as they are legitimate and submit positive proposals, they should have their time to shine.

Here is a 🧵👇...

#LetsGovernTogether

@DomSchiener Growth committee proposal has been submitted to the Governance Discourse. Adamski proposed a counter proposal of his own. He did this within, and per the Governance Framework structure developed by the community. The community voted, and now we go to a run off.

Here is my personal opinion of why I am voting for Dom's proposal.

Indeed 50% community funds, combined with TEA, seems like a lot to spend in a single first year for a network. However, we must trust our leaders vision. Saying that, I live by the statement, "TRUST BUT VERIFY!"

That is what Dom's proposal offers. He revised it to meet the communities concerns and added that the top three candidates chosen by the community as community representatives, will hold the majority power in decision making within the Growth Committee.

He could have gone a different way. Potentially chose people himself, or tried to give IF majority control. Yet he didn't. He created a stipulation that the three community representatives have a 3 to 2 majority power over any vote, and ultimately the funds.

"We", are electing "our" representatives. If we don't trust them to act in our best interest and protect the community, then what are we doing in the first place?

We must trust the process, and trust that the community representatives will act in accordance with the community.

The fact is that Dom's vision is under NDA and difficult to show publicly. Yet, it is written in Dom's proposal that the three representatives sign NDAs, will have full knowledge and information of the proposed plan, and then can act within the best interest of the community.

The days of always hearing, "NDA", may be behind us. We are entering a new realm where the community, through a Governance framework and elected representatives, govern together, alongside the IOTA Foundation. This may only be the start!

One thing to note is, the representatives do not have to agree to spend all 50% in one year. They do not have to agree to funding activities that will not return funds back to the treasury at a later date. The representatives are there to protect the interests of the community.

Aside from the above it has already been stated and shown, that the community Treasury, and growth treasury, will always seek transparency. With NDA projects it may be slightly different, but nonetheless in some way the expenditure of funding will be shown.

The only difference with NDA funding will be that we need to ensure lawyers agree with what can be shown and that it legally abides by the NDA agreement. Further, the Governance group has always been transparent with single page link trees to meeting recordings, minutes, etc.

If we create rigid structures on transparency, this could potentially hinder funding certain NDA projects. We need to trust the delegated representatives that they will make transparent per the NDA contracts, and ensure such contracts are in the interest of the community.

Pretty much everything in the counter proposal is already in place in regards to transparency, community representation, and majority control. The only difference is the aspect of percentage of funds used.

I am voting to support Dom's proposal because I don't want to limit an opportunity which the ecosystem needs now more than ever. I am also supporting his proposal because the approval power is in the hands of the community representatives. I am giving my trust to "them", not Dom.

Vote for Dom's proposal and have trust in the delegates we are voting to represent us! They will act in our best interest, for a long lasting treasury, and always prioritize transparency.

#LetsGovernTogether #Shimmer #IOTA #AllVoicesMatter #FariVoting

govern.iota.org/t/sgp-0004-run…