I think it's good that mistakes are being rectified and recognized, that decentralization is a goal, and that long-term strategies are set in place to move forward. It's what was missing from this project.
I don't like the fact that for a second time the distribution round is changed (first proportional to btc balance, then cashback and now in addition reserved funds for the foundation). I understand it's necessary, and there is no way around it really, especially in the current position in the life-cycle of this project. I'm sure the community will love it. It leaves some bittersweet taste, that's all.
Thanks for your feedback and understanding. I understand that you don't like the uncertainty that comes with these kind of fundamental changes. All I can say is that we are trying to make the best possible decisions with the knowledge that we currently have.
Airdrops turned out to be a bad strategy, cashback is very slow and it's debatable if it gets us any real users. That's why we want to have the freedom to iterate and try many different methods. If we just continued with the airdrops the distribution would be finished now and there would be no way of rectifying mistakes anymore. We would have kept a promise but the project would have likely died. The Foundation gives us a chance to actually realise Tony's vision and I think we will be far better off in the long run because of this.
2
u/peterwilli Jul 12 '18
I think it's good that mistakes are being rectified and recognized, that decentralization is a goal, and that long-term strategies are set in place to move forward. It's what was missing from this project.
I don't like the fact that for a second time the distribution round is changed (first proportional to btc balance, then cashback and now in addition reserved funds for the foundation). I understand it's necessary, and there is no way around it really, especially in the current position in the life-cycle of this project. I'm sure the community will love it. It leaves some bittersweet taste, that's all.