See guys, @gismar is essentially talking about what I was concerned about in the original discussion of this topic. It’s really not about whether or not this is a great idea on the surface, but the fact that ZERO discussion has taken place about the technical implementation or purpose of the original design. This is an especially important consideration as we consider developers workloads with DIGG and other major focuses on their plate.
Meanwhile, BIP 16 brought up a buyback program, something intensely valuable to the long-term survival of Badger, and there’s very little interest because it went to vote before the idea was fully fleshed out.
I don’t want to see us going the route of Pickle Finance. Jar swapping was a great idea on the surface. How did that turn out? There should be a workflow here for adequately covering a subject on multiple levels before it becomes a BIP and voted on like this. Otherwise we end up with uneven topic coverage before voting, which is essentially wasted time at best and presents security risk at worst.