[A] All Harmony treasury funding must be submitted as an HIP and voted on by validators. Without approval (% / methodology can be debated), funding will not be released.
[B] The ONE in the treasury wallets can not be used as “stake” in the vote ([A] above).
[C] (Debating with myself on the merits of how to deal with outsized ONE holdings of core team members – if the idea is that community stakeholders should be driving funding decisions via their respective validator)
1. To do otherwise would be to turn our backs on the foundational philosophy of decentralization and proof-of-stake
2. There is clearly no consensus amongst the community about funding decisions.
There are literally discussions across Reddit, Twitter, talk.harmony.one, etc, trying to guess who the stakeholders are, who’s in the “silent majority / minority” and what they want to fund.
If only we knew of a tool / network created to solve this exact problem of consensus…
3. Investors in common stocks literally have more recourse on funding decisions than Harmony validators and delegators
This should be table stakes.
4. There’s a reason “real life” governmental structures have representative stakeholder assemblies that have to pass bills related to funding.
I realize there are many more details involved in a potential implementation, but I’ll stop there for the time being to open up the discussion.
It’s possible I’m missing something. But for consensus, itself, to seemingly be in question, I propose we use the tool at our disposal. I’m certainly open to other ideas and feedback.