I’m a BCW member and you say you’re a BCW member too, but based on your Twitter profile and the website you rather appear to be some kind of Sovryn development partner that claims to test decentralization, interesting… Well, partner, Sovryn appears to be your sole customer based on these media. How’s that agenda for transparency?
I’m not a partner nor employed by Sovryn, I have a hobby project and making a mobile wallet. Haven’t asked for their permission or made SIP for this, just went ahead and made it as a community member.
Why did I make it? Wanted to test out how mobile wallets work and choose to build around sovryn because I had an origin’s token vested and I wanted to be able to withdraw them and swap at any point without having to carry my hardware wallet and computer around while traveling. Guilty of that.
But okay, how’s that Sovryn “decentralization” to your liking so far? E.g. “community voting” actually appears to be more like team voting, well that is, if voting is permitted by “Sovryn Guardians” at all. This forum thread appears to be censored in part too. Project leadership presenting “evidence” on the basis of semi-transparency and refusing further dialogue. But hey nevermind, as you yourself paint only half of the picture as well and rather like to make a showcase for some unfounded innuendos at your own discretion based on half of the puzzle pieces.
Indeed there is no decentralization in the voting power, but I haven’t seen any solution on how to make sure that removing that power from the team does not open issues to the protocol.
Other than a security one, my concern is that they will prepare some new features or bug fixes, will make SIP, and then not enough people will vote because they have something else to do. So without some % of votes, SIP will just be discarded by default.
I myself voted only for a couple SIP’s, there will be a lot like me.
By the way, even if team power would be reduced by burning, chances are most of the community, me included, would just delegate our VP to some team member, again increasing their VP.
And of course, in general this SIP would need more dialogue, research, detail, etc., but - besides the sincere intentions of the 3 improvement areas of this SIP - by submitting this SIP D Man foremost appears (to want) to expose non-decentralized practices and to spur both community and team action as Sovryn its time might be running out pursuing the current course and piling up of delay after delay and failure after failure.
As you said - dialogue and research is a must here. But it does not look like Dman wants dialogue. Just tries to enforce what he drafted in an instant and does not want us to take another look at it before voting.
And on a side note, you as being a Sovryn development partner, a professional one I assume, how can you ask D Man for what must be changed about the UI/UX? That’s the assignment for the UI/UIX professionals in the agile development team(s), not D Man as a stakeholder its job. Or is it the backend developers coding the frontend on the fly too?
Just to make clear: I’m not a partner and not UX/UI professional. But I do know something about coding.
I consider myself a stakeholder too, but it didn’t stop me from making alternative UI (app) to solve problems I had. My UI is still shit, but it works and can be changed by proposing changes to the github.
In my opinion that part should not be in a SIP, anyone can make UI as its only skin.
What I think sovryn team doesn’t have is a UX/UI professional, someone who researches user behavior and especially crypto projects.
If this part is needed in the SIP, then it should demand UX/UI professional with crypto background to be hired, who, then would have a purpose of making dapp user friendly.