No, probably not. They really only want to give the decision power about delegations to employees:
Whyever …
That was already tried to be explained multiple times in this thread in excruciating detail. But it seems to not have been understood.
Maybe, the irony that the OP splained the Dunning-Kruger effect to the IOG Discord just recently amuses some of the readers as much as me.
Sorry, all just personal opinion, but I can also take only so much before becoming snarky.
I dont support this idea.
I think SPOs (including myself with two IOG delegations) need to figure out how maintain their operations without assistance or subsidies at all. Cardano needs healthy self-sustaining valdators worldwide. This probably means diversified business operations - like my new project https://testnetcoins.io - time to get creative and fly solo! Stake your ADA to Santo and to TEST if you want help Cardano testnets. Just my 2 cents for whatever its worth
Hi @santonode
Thanks for taking the time to review my idea and share your thoughts.
Congratulations on your past IOG delegations.
Clearly you have invested a great deal of time, energy and creativity in TestnetCoins. I hope that the project brings you continued success within the Cardano ecosystem, and that “looking out for number one” brings you happiness.
Reading the Web site:
TestnetCoins introduces new mainnet tokens that will provide rewards for community Testers and SPOs. These new reward tokens will be given for “Proof of Participation” to create an enhanced incentive.
In greater detail, I am wondering how TestnetCoins plans to make decisions related to distributing the new reward tokens, as well as who may be empowered to make such decisions.
With decentralization arguably being the future of governance (for example, see DAOs will never work without fixing governance and Voltaire era), my proposal aims to increase decentralization, transparency and agility of delegations to stake pools and related decisions that IO, the Cardano Foundation and EMURGO may make.
FYI for participants (I’m posting this same comment in 3 somewhat related threads): In part due to the huge discussion around the draft CIP-1694 we’ve created a couple of channels to discuss Governance issues. Both channels linked here will also be suited to general considerations of Governance which may be off-topic to the GitHub discussion and/or the CIP process itself: