I said this on Discord but I want to be sure it is said here, although it is a bit of a repeat of what I said earlier in this thread.
We now have two proposals that utilize the same funds from the 29% retroactive distribution in the genesis proposal, so I believe to move forward we will need to reconcile the two proposals in some way so that the treasury knows what to do.
While I think voting is one way to resolve this, something we learned from the other proposal is that communication is more important than a poll about whether you are “FOR” and “AGAINST” on something.
To try to resolve this I think we should try to be transparent about what the goals are of this proposal.
Is this about access (1) or is it about getting tokens (2)?
1. If it is about access, then maybe a better proposal is about making sure that people who redeemed the badge after May 4th (through 31st) are given access to the Discord. One example of resolving it would be adjusting the retroactive genesis distribution to be sure that the “redeem after” group is given at least 35k in the second airdrop. This could also just be adjusting the Discord access to be the average number of tokens in the second airdrop (if it is lower than 35k). There are plenty of other options to resolve this.
2. If it is about getting tokens, then I suggest we make it clear that these funds are being taken away from the 29% retroactive genesis proposal allocation for people in the second airdrop. Because the second airdrop is reduced to meet this new proposal, it is only fair that this message is abundantly clear before any snapshot vote takes place. I truly believe that some may not be aware of this fact, especially since it was only clarified after this poll had been made.
I realize you may not be able to edit the original proposal, but to be honest I think it would a better idea to start a new proposal with a new poll, since the proposal has been changed from the original that started the poll. This was something we learned from after the other proposal had a similar issue. While this is not an official procedure that we have established, there is an argument for doing this in good faith.
I hope this makes sense. Once again there is no perfect solution, we must work together and hope that everyone’s concerns are voiced before putting it to a real vote.
Thank you for taking the time to put together your proposal, and I hope you will consider my concerns.