What is to keep holders of a voting token to price dump on the opposition, lol? If you gave everyone with a wallet one vote that would be hackable but make more sense?
If we need to lobby to vote the direction of ENG core development hours, or by extension Secret Swap features, we temp teams to continually fund their own initiatives and create barriers to entry for competition. Or build systems that pay rewards for managing the system rather than staking or holding tokens.
With KIN as an example, we saw KDP payouts fund a group of developers that held an interest in being the only apps available for funding and then designing the development pipeline to ask the “core” to invest time and energy refining the system rather than rewarding competition and eventual growth. If SCRT has existing teams and leads, I worry that voting will be used as a loophole to funnel development and funds and roles will be full-time lobbyists who have governance meetings to decide the direction in their favor or ultimately that it will reflect the bureaucracy of the corporate world and we will fail to make suggestions if we want to be considered for funding.
As a case study, excessive grants were given ($7B+ Kin earmarked for the gaming challenge) and only a few games were entered. Our app had 50x more users and spends than the next best app and the payout was a few billion for that award group and about the same for the pool rewarding a special payout per spend…
Needless to say they shouldn’t have paid that much for a few participants and so walked some of it back. This also probably proves they weren’t intentionally targeting their own teams unless they simply failed to consider me as competitor. The barrier to entry was the difficulty in learning how to setup and support user wallets etc. The focus was always on a shifting backend. If they really wanted to scale though they would have had someone capable of working with apps and doing the integration for multiple projects vs everyone doing it and then failing to optimize the front-end user engagement.
So, as a community of KIN supporters, we spent over $4M USD value at the recent price pump on a few gaming apps and paid a program manager and engineers to build the SDK… but spent NOTHING on recruiting new Unity or other teams to compete and then squashed the entire program when they did. Why not expand into AR, VR and use those tools to reach more teams? A part of the community is rebuilding the Unity SDK with Solana on their own and the old one discontinued.
We were the beneficiaries of those inefficiencies and they were largely centralized decisions. But I think it matters who your initial team is and if their experience matches your own style. Ted of KIN built one of the largest mobile messaging apps in the world (KICK) and he may yet prove the programs he created were meaningful to his success. Having leads, teams and voting organizations may work but I want to see more focus and support of non technical inclusion and community development outside of paid agents and Telegram. Alternatively, we may agree everyone should become an engineer and build everything from scratch. For example, allowing a few months for a turrent without a complex shader, particle effects or rendering pipeline is good and we can build tutorials and tools. Fine. I don’t want to fight that process as much as I wish to see it evolve and so that these grants are made to help connect the backend to front-end development and aim for a 20/80 system of engineers to front end design or NFT artists. Let’s scale for investors and that happens to fall on my ability to develop in Unity but it’s because that’s where my education and experience lead me to see the most marginal utility. This competitive positioning and development is opposed to voting based on the skillset I would have as an engineer or insider. Even now I feel like I’m only addressing a group that currently holds established voting power and attacking their positions. Sadly.
So, I see voting as a barrier to non technical inclusion and these people are not currently represented at even 5% due to the technical barrier to entry. Simply going out and owning SEFI to vote on something is not as obvious as it may seem and SEFI already dumped enough for concern.