I find @ameensol’s proposal to sell his DOTs to Aragon elegantly beautiful (better if he wanted to sell them all).
(1) No money is coercively moved from Aragon’s treasury (your money, ICO participant) to Polkadot’s war chest.
(2) Aragon gets more value for its money and can keep up w/ its diversi-plans.
In the end, (2) is the only thing that matters. This is all about Aragon. Aragon is all about transparence and inclusive governance.
It chills my spine to read stuff like:
“We’ve done the work to make a deal that works. I can’t disclose the terms” […]
Let’s NOT foster this kind of behaviour. What are you trying to make me vote into if you can’t disclose its terms? Can you at least refute what Ameen said ($109/DOT + 20% disc.)?
It’s perfectly fine to be against a risky OTC-type trade. But it’s incoherent to see less risk in a private, backdoor’d deal, where no voter is aware of the conditions. It’s even worse to try to mask that.
The Web3 Foundation is not a broker of DOTs. […] discussions between the two entities have implied a substantial discount versus current market signals.
So what you’re saying is “Yes, basically we’re acting as a broker of DOTs”.
That said, much respect for the work W3F’s been doing (technically and politically). There’s rotten apples in almost every basket, but I really want to see Polka flourish and Aragon take off.
This paragraph by @seeking (Discussion Regarding AGP - Aragon Acquisition of DOTs) perfectly resonates with me. It says it all:
“It’s especially important for Aragon and ANT holders to establish a precedent of not just accepting market deals from token brokers […] because of the asymmetry between a centralized negotiator […] and a decentralized but capturable negotiator […] (Aragon insiders and ANT holders like us)”.
We all know this is a plutocracy. Now is a rich learning opportunity. I wonder how hard is it ever going to be to transition to a quadratic-voting (or any power-flattening voting scheme) if this ever has to go through a 1-token-1-vote model AGP.