OSMOSIS Signaling Proposal: Ion DAO & Treasury Considerations
After receiving some enquiries regarding Citadel.one's voting "Yes" on current proposal, we decided to start this topic and collect all considerations for and against proposal #120.
Based on the community feedback Citadel.one might change it's vote from "Yes" to "Abstain" or "No".
Here's Citadel.one's official position and reasons on why we voted "Yes":
"First and foremost establishing a separate structure responsible for ION seems logical while governing ION through OSMO does not. There are fewer ION holders than OSMO holders, thus ION shouldn't be governed by users who don’t hold ION.
Another thing is that this is just a Signaling proposal. It doesn’t enforce any transactions or transfers of funds. Our vote in favour means that we support the creation of ION DAO and that’s it.
Once the DAO is established and we see their development plan, I guess there will be another proposal. Based on their plan we will decide how we vote further."
Here are reasons for a "No" vote based on community feedback gathered by osmosis community members and Citadel.one delegators:
"-This proposal is very vague, and although it is a signally proposal it asks to “pre-commit” the ≈ 16k ION/$200M+ from the Osmosis community pool to a not yet created ION DAO. OSMO holders feel the OCP owns the ION & is a native osmosis token at the moment. Some feel we could also help develop use case, some feel we need reciprocation if we are giving away those funds.
-they argue the ION was always meant for a separate DAO & that’s what prop 32 meant, but there was no mention of that in the governance proposal that was voted on. A pattern of vagueness that is not good for governance and is creating these problems. There has been no community consensus or true discussion around this commitment. The larger community is against it until further discussion, but the dev team & a few validators hold enough voting power to outweigh a larger number of people. People feel decentralization in osmosis has gone away as validators blindly vote YES with any idea coming from Osmosis's team members. Especially when osmosis has low individual voting turnout.
-there is no alignment of incentives that ensures ION will work towards value accrual for Osmosis after giving these funds to the DAO. There’s talk of eventual making ION it’s own chain which weakens trust of ION bringing lasting value to Osmosis. Stats show ION whales aren’t usually OSMO holders, so this looks like whales looking to position themselves for all the benefit. There needs to be an agreement and a way to align incentives for both sides before the OCP gives away funds to a separate DAO. There needs to be transparency with the community about that eventual plan and possibility of a separate ION chain instead of hiding it behind short term hype.
-some people feel this is a large money grab by a small few. They are saying “trust us” but won’t verify even in a crypto world.
-NO does not mean NO forever to the ION DAO. It is a YES to further discussion with the community."
We are opening this topic and a Telegram poll for ONLY Citadel.one delegators to express their views regarding the situation. The proposal ends in about 1 day from now, so the poll will be active for the next 24 hours.
Cast your vote here: https://t.me/citadelofficial/53231