-
I think thats not the full picture. Historically voting participation never exceeded 50% if we also talk about IRL voting. On Mendi the highest participation was with the first vote, reaching ~33% meaning 66% did not vote. In the last votes its even lower. I dont think its realistic to reach over 50% participation, meaning that half of the stakers would not approve the proposal. We can potentially raise thresholds to 66% of the total staked Mendi for example to reach consensus, but realistically governance should try to avoid proposals like this.
-
I think thats not well supported, espeically with low volume tokens like Mendi. If the volume would be 2-3m per day, I would be more optimistic, currently I am a bit skeptic what would be the benefit being brought.
-
This actually touches on the part of the previous topic, I dont think that this proposal would drive a good CEX strategy. I think there are alternative ways, which I will expand on in the end.
-
If we are planning to list on all of these over the next couple of years it will have a budget of 13 times on average 100-150k. This will take 2 years to complete at minimum. Stakers should be aware of the implications. I also dont think 13 exchanges are necessary, very few blue-chip projects follow a strategy like this. Take a look at Ether.fi Renzo CEX strategy for example.
-
As I mentioned in the previous answer this will redirect revenue for at least 2 years and votes need to have these points clarified.
-
We can create a vesting schedule.
-
These is very vague, we do engage with content creators already, so this is not something new either.
Using views etc on TW to benchmark performance is a money pit btw because anyone can purchase views and followers from bots. -
I think an initiative like this should have a fully fledged offer and budet from a CEX.
To sum up, I think a better approach is to push for CEX listing iniatiatives with concrete listing and to use a private sale with vesting for funding, and potentially redirect revenue to buy back the private sale amount until the vesting ends.
I dont see a good outcome from voting on these proposals.
One of the main issue is that if the core team believes a strategy puts the approach at a disadvantage they are not the correct executioners for the strategy. CEX strategy should be driven by offers and concerete votes with concrete details behind them.
One main approach for governance is that if a proposer is not the executioner they should be aligned with the executioner team on execution. Its not the correct approach to post that someone will execute it without first syncing with them.
If there are community driven proposals, the core team can be contacted through the DC tickets etc, we can set up the necessary channels to have a proposal that we can fully support with execution (even if we are not the proposers)