There’s been a lot of debate about the ITN and its possible continuing. Safe to say, it’s a good demonstration of the value of Voltaire.
Just to clarify - I am not contending base facts. ITN is a distributed blockchain network, a decentralized system and indeed, no one can stop ITN operators, nor its users from continuing on.
Similarly, the code is open source and developers could continue the network. All of this is self-evident.
Furthermore, I’m also inclined to believe that because IOHK sees value in the network, there is value. I don’t wish to debate these parts.
My cocern is solely centered around the idea of further funding ITN via mainnet ADA rewards, even if only for one additional month.
- The vote is problematic
Again. Arguing over whether the ITN can continue to run or can fork the code is pointless. They are absolutely able to and this is by design, as stated.
But IF the ITN is to be further subsidized by mainnet rewards, then asking the ITN participants alone is problematic. They are the beneficiaries of these rewards, why should they reject them?
And at the other end - as any reduction of staking rewards detract from the ADA token value (thinking goes: future rewards are priced in), why are those who bought and are presently holding said ADA not asked?
It all amounts to a “About us, without us” scenario.
The ITN has ~40% ADA staked - this means the majority who are to subsidize such rewards are not asked for consent. Furthermore, many deliberately bought large amounts of ADA only to reduce their positions after the ITN snapshot. Not all 40% actually represents people presently invested in the project.
We live in times where national banks are presently engaging in hitherto unheard levels of wealth redistribution through money printing and selective propping up of markets.
Disapproval of such is rising and is quite literally seared into the genesis block of the blockchain which started a revolution.
Given this backdrop, having an entrenched, privileged minority voting on whether to enrich themselves with rewards otherwise intended for the broader community may seem a bit out of touch.
- It changes the monetary policy and may undermine trust
An oft touted benefit of Bitcoin is that its monetary policy is predictable and expressed directly in the code. It’s a literal instantiation of “code is law”.
By subsidizing the ITN, even for one month further, it will be proven possible for continued subsidy of the ITN or of other projects to tap into the rewards otherwise intended for staking which could affect price negatively.
Appeasing ADA investors isn’t and shouldn’t be the highest concern of IOHK. But one need look no further than Twitter and Youtube videos and commentary to realize that there is real concern over this issue.
Even if further subsidizing of ITN by way of mainnet ADA was the only way, and I do not believe it is, the stated benefit of a continued test-bed for rapid prototyping must be weighed against the possibility of alienating a large swath of present ADA holders who not only represent investors, but early believers and evangelists.