@Merlin-M-Ostermann Appreciate your time on this. And also I do recognize your compassion (I don’t think you are being too cold or anything). If you felt like my post was a form of gaslighting, that was not my intent and far from how I want to approach this.
I was questioning whether to mention the specifics of my personal situation, as they might seem mechanically irrelevant. But I decided to add that color anyway to distinguish my scenario from those chalked up to simple forgetfulness or lack of engagement. I had a very reasonable personal event—that can happen to all of us—that led me to go AFK for a period. Prior to that, I put in more energy than the regular layman that doesn’t really care much ab this. I voted in almost every proposal, contributed to the conversation, evangelized, ushered in new users, etc.
I just think It’s important our policies make these considerations within reason. Foster inclusivity to all earnest participants.
In regards to your other points - I had a few thoughts:
-
Being that one of our values is to be normie friendly (as this is good for all of us locally and globally), I think we shouldn’t use typical patterns in web3 as the primary model for policy creation. 99% of web3 is a scam. And every normie feels this way. If we only follow patterns of web3, we run the high risk of being perceived as part of the same scam pattern. It would make sense to consider web2 models.
-
Case in point: Before the Credit Card act of 2009. Gift card expiration dates varied significantly from one issuer to another. Many gift cards before 2009 had expiration dates as short as a few months to one year after being issued. Often the terms of expirations were not clearly disclosed at the time of purchase. Leading to consumer confusion/frustration when they discovered their card had lost value or expired. This resulted in loads of lawsuits, petitions, advocacy groups. The discontent was wide spread. This is what happens at scale. There are parallells here to the ASR that we can learn from.
In short, This is really about more inclusion. And I had to speak up and share my anecdotal, add a data point. There were others that spoke up, but none as strongly.
If I were to make a hypothesis, the segment of the pop that were non-claimers were of the normie segment. They are not obsessed about web3, they voted as a personal experiment… to see what would happen if they put in some time and energy into this thing. They check in not daily but perhaps once or twice a month. However, perhaps they still contribute significantly to liquidity and want to see this “dao thing” play out.
For this segment, do we want their personal experiment to fail? or do we want to gain and deepen their trust and give them the confidence to go for the next experiment? Something to think about.
At the end of the day, my suggestion at minimum would be to increase the next asr period closer to quarterly (to naturally align with quarterly asr timing). Implement additional channels for communication and be clear about conditions before start of energy exchange.
For asr 1, it would be meaningful to be made complete (me and others). I will continue to contribute regardless. I know the leads are looking into this - apreciate it.
Thanks for reading all of that.
Cheers.