A utopia typically ends quickly (it's inherently doomed to fail, as the word's etymology suggests). The thing is, people will probably move on, growing tired of the constant changes in such a short time. This indicates a clear lack of direction, or at least a lack of communication. We had a very generic cast a few weeks ago saying, "We heard the community," from someone who only discovered the paidgroup channel a few days ago, even though it's been around for three months, and who listened to a handful of people in just two casts. How is this "hearing the community"?

What caused OpenRank to completely fall apart and get shut down in one month? The lack of communication is what frustrates me. If you don't have the time (and I believe you don't), hire someone to handle PR.

🧵 3/3

TL;DR: Staking and incentives should exist, but they should not be linked to having allowance.

If the token is to grow and the target is people who stake 1M or more, these people who are not in the game today due to lack of time will have an incentive to enter the game with less effort. That's it, isn't it?

The coolest thing about allowance is curating interesting people, whether they are well-articulated individuals or people doing interesting projects within the community, thereby improving and strengthening the entire community. Those who come in with money and little effort won't have the time or patience to do this curation (with rare exceptions) because they simply don't do it today.

These individuals need to get into the game and have incentives, but that shouldn't be the definitive factor in who should have allowance.

IRL: Creative Director who makes movies and ads.

Interesting perspective! How do you propose decoupling staking incentives from having a large allowance could benefit token growth and accessibility? Are there specific examples or strategies you've seen or considered that could effectively encourage broader participation in staking?