Indeed Setup has to be done prior to EVM (if I’m saying not before EVM I mean public action - we definitly need to setup prior). I have no clue how long setting up the Swiss entity takes - we should kick that off ASAP.
Regarding #71 I was a strong denier of this proposal too (just see #20). I feel like we are on a good path with this and I’m pushing to come to a result I consider a good deal for the community. Which I expect to happen. I am glad most of my concerns have been responded to very well. I don’t want this to be a vote-and-forget-about-it proposal. Democracy is definitly slower than delegation, but since we are talking about a significant part of the supply we should reserve us that time.
My summary of this discussion is quite positive. I saw many thought-out statements and everyone got the opportunity to promote his point of view. As someone who just recently joined the community I could read through all the comments, form my opinion and directly engage in a discussion with the heads of the project´s development. I am sure many others did the same but decided to take a passive part in the talk.
Sure, not every question got answered and not everyone will be pleased with the result but there is also no such thing as complete transparency in politics, trust is an important part in democracy.
And rarely before there was a chance to take part in economic decisions of this scale as a stakeholder or community member this actively. Now we are going to see which position could gather the most support. Like stated above it is governance in action.
I totally follow your thoughs any maybe you can see that i did not vote for this proposal.
But I think that we should now wait for the adjusted proposal and discuss the relevant points then
After all these comments and the developments of the last few days, i think i have come to a conclusion for myself:
At first i was also rather against these proposal, but quickly recognized the idea behind this and came to a realistic estimation of when the DAO would be fully operational.
However, my main argument is the current market situation SMR/USD/USDT and those order books. Here, i see exactly the same parallels to the market situation of IOTA in recent years. All…really ALL people are hodling SMR. There is literally no SMR being traded, because there is simply a lack of market makers.
Ultimately, we should not make the same mistake here as with IOTA again, that the pricing of SMR dies due to lack of volume. And in my opinion, we should address this situation BEFORE the introduction of smart contracts.
In order not to deprive the DAO of funds forever, a slow return of funds to the DAO would make sense if the measures are successful. But at the moment, i also see some time pressure and a need for action to support dom’s efforts.
It seems somewhat optimistic to me to assume IOTA is not higher in market cap because of lack of volume. Hell IOTA got to #5 without employing wash traders.
I also have my doubts if no one is trading SMR because of there being no market makers. There are buy and sell orders, granted not a lot, but they are there. I think it has more to do with a lack of interest. Hell who even knows about Shimmers outside of IOTA community? Of course there is already wash trading going on with Shimmer. Probably just the exchange doing it themselves, but who knows, maybe paid for by TEA money.
However at the risk of yet again repeating myself, but why does TEA needs another $7M? What can they do with $22M they cannot do with $15M?