It is not merely a “technical argument”. It is not possible to define a coherent community with aligned “best interests”. There are many different subgroups from traders without particular interest in Cardano, just waiting for numbers to go up, but still potentially holding lots of ADA, via NFT and memecoin gamblers to ideologues waiting, even hoping for the downfall of all of traditional society.
Stating the advancement of the protocol and not the interests of this diverse “comnunity” as the purpose is very wise in this context. It enables to say: “Nope, we won’t shill your silly JPGs, no matter how many loudly screaming ‘community members’ you mobilise. It’s just not our purpose. We might help building a trustworthy marketplace for them, though. That is in purpose.”
Why was it okay “to override community consensus of block production” in that case?
Why would they? It is the other way round: The decision to stake their ADA comes first. Could be argued they even have to because that is what foundations/trusts do – invest to get capital gains and then do something for their intended purpose with those gains. And the delegation strategy is then “just” the decision how to delegate with the most benefit to Cardano.
This relies on your belief that CF is somehow different from other ADA holders. Otherwise anyone’s staking would be a “centralised force” and this argument would lose all meaning.
I still don’t see them being that different from other organisations – companies, exchanges, DeFi pools – holding ADA. They hold ADA, they have a body that can make decisions, they can decide to stake their ADA. Simple as that.
Moreover, this is grossly overstated for drama. The delegations of CF are not that huge to completely change the game, just a medium boost to three dozen pools.
Again, the decision to stake the ADA probably comes first – because it’s the fiduciary dutiful thing to do.
Are you really saying that they should sell their ADA (creating a huge sell pressure that harms all parts of the community who want or have to sell at the same time) and invest in a traditional fund?
Or do you want them to invest inside Cardano, in ADA? Are there already “funds” in Cardano that would be compatible with the duties of a foundation to preserve its capital?
I hope not. Democracy has told us that we probably have no alternative, but should not have too high expectations in collective decision making.
Not because its results are so extraordinary, but because the alternatives are even worse.
We already had that: How are https://forum.cardano.org/t/cardano-foundations-new-delegation-methodology-supporting-the-architects-of-the-future/79594, https://forum.cardano.org/t/cardano-foundation-updates-delegation-strategy/122773 and the yearly announcements https://forum.cardano.org/t/announcing-the-stake-pools-chosen-for-november-2024/139205 not transparent? What do they lack?