48 total views
Capital is only part of the power to solve the value problem. The key issue is how the agreement will reward soft contributions such as community building, governance participation, documentation and educational programs.
Translation/Organization: Perry Wang
Twitter user Ξwoki GITer of CoinZ (Chief Robotics Expert of Ethereum Fundraising Platform Gitcoin) was the first to comment on the fair launch :
Can it be said that the so-called ” fair start ” boom is equivalent to income farming through the liquidity provider LP? Just use money to make more money?
That is not a fair start.
What I want is to invest in the cultivation of income, what I want is ” proof of knowledge “, ” proof of use “, ” proof of marketing “! That’s a fair start!
Twitter user kain.eth (founder of Synthetix, one of the 4 multi-signature controllers of yuni.finance) then gave a warm response and sent a series of tweets to express his personal views on the issue of fair start:
To put it in a very good point, just like the initial Bitcoin, the obstacle is firstly the lack of information, and then to a certain extent the technology (according to CGminer, it is like an IQ test, I personally failed many times), and then the purchase of commercial hardware obstacle. Cleverness and openness are more powerful than simply being rich!
When it comes to income farming, it is completely reversed. Access to capital is far more important to success than those mentioned above. But for the agreement, the person with the most capital is the most useful. Unless this agreement is native to some extent. In reality, capital alone is not enough.
The key issue is how the agreement can reward soft contributions such as community building, governance participation, documentation, and educational programs under the premise of provability.
I think that we have seen some good experiments in this direction, but they carry a high risk. If they are caught on loopholes and exploited, the possibility of splitting the community will be more profitable than the currently accepted and uncontroversial status quo. Much higher.
However, if the fair start is only based on the proportion of capital, the prerequisite is that the market’s prior distribution of capital is fair. In my opinion, this is a considerable assumption.
In the DeFi space, one of the most exciting things for me is to create coordinated games without privileges. But when capital is needed, especially if the initial capital allocation can be self-reinforcing, it is very difficult to achieve no privileged status. Well, at least we have prevented corruption due to capital to some extent.
But have we achieved the goal of creating a level playing field that allows the contribution of other attributes to be higher than pure capital contribution ?
Don’t be busy shouting communism! This raises a very effective ethical problem, and it is also an optimization problem. If we allow the proceeds of the open agreement to flow only to those with the most funds, and because this is a difficult problem, we will ignore everything else. bored.
If we launch a level playing field in which capital contributions are equally distributed with other contributions to start a new system, then we will have a more open and efficient system. Usually the person with the most capital has the lowest contribution value in other areas.
Chris Burniske, partner of Placeholder, a blockchain investment institution, retweeted :
Network capital should flow to its valuable contributions. The contribution capital made by investors is only a (small) part of solving the value problem .
If it is over-allocated to investors, it may stifle the hopes of the Internet, leaving only pathological gains and vulgar and stupid Internet play.
Yearn.finance founder Andre Cronje said in a post:
Not everything is related to money .