Hi @Jaam, I should apologize for coming in too hard on that reply. It’s easy to express our deeper emotional selves (which can be intense) when communicating on these digital channels.
I think you guys are all reasonable and of intelligent minds.
My latest post/reply sums up my case. Unclaimed ASR reward to go to next round - #37 by Pandamunk. And the discussion during town hall today was positive.
I did have a suggestion regarding determining whether “most people claimed”. We should look at wallets claimed number from total and not JUP. As well as distribution of unclaimed Jup among those wallets compared to claimed wallets. I’m curious what can be learned there about our most engaged audience (those who voted).
But if it is true that most claimed. Then it would be more accurate to say the majority excluding the minority (to my prior point). Which I don’t think we want since our larger total addressable market is likely diverse.
In regards to circulating excess, I think its fine. But we should always consider our audience in any schemes from the start (as we already do)… but intentionally try to be more inclusive. We should look to ensure delivery of promises unless there is a good reason to sacrifice. Communication should be clear (and early when possible) before an energy trade begins. When things change and perceived promises are broken… there should be a really good reason for that. IMO this would lead to higher community participation. When trust is nurtured and protected. Which I know we all try our hardest to do.