I wanted to highlight a “meta” thing I have noticed on the forum. It seems there is a Dunning Kruger effect taking place when discussing things such as decentralization, economics, security, and community.
When it came to BADGER emissions and DIGG, it felt like a like of great opinions were offered but a portion of those were offered by people without any background in finance, economics, scaling, or cryptocurrency (wen digg/give me retro airdrop). This harms projects long term in the areas identified above but does build a sense of community and voice.
How can we conquer the challenges above in a positive way and move forward? I’m worried most BIPs are passing because it feels good to be in a DAO, bull market, and community. Those that have been in the inverse market though have seen what can happen when the profit motivation is no longer there.
I’m not surprised by the lack of engagement here, as you’re not entirely setting a welcome mat down for people to speak up.
I don’t believe we, or any community, can expect people to have a working background of what they’re commenting on, suggesting, etc. Nor should we, people of all walks of life can have earth shattering ideas or insights about topics that they have never discussed.
What I think we need to work towards is the ability to funnel the communities desires through a smaller amount of people. Less noise, more impact.
I’m not Chris, and frankly don’t know who that is. I’m someone who works in the industry who wants to see this project succeed.
When it comes to things like multisig, we need experts and peer review. I’m worried that 1) the BIP was lacking details and 2) the community seems quick to approve things due to profit motivations.
There is benefit to moving quickly, but when it comes to important decisions like key generation, it can tank a project (and has). I just want us to be more critical (and constructive) on how we can better move forward.