I think Pixelcraft made a good compromise. The proposal considers the interests of current Gotchi owners as well as the interests of people looking to buy in on H2. It also considers rising development costs as the team grows, and reinvests into its development. All of that is great and it shows that you guys are listening to our suggestions and concerns and try your best to chart a good course for Aavegotchi’s future.
That said, I’d like to point out some constructive criticism.
What does saving time for the DAO mean? If you start at a hyperlink to the proposal, it takes 4 clicks to cast a vote. So any time saved for the DAO by creating 1 instead of 3, 4, or even 5 signal proposals is negligible. Especially compared to writing hundreds or even thousands of lines of code. The DAO is not the bottleneck. But maybe I misunderstood.
Either way, I don’t think bundling proposals is a good idea. And saying it is for the benefit of the DAO just makes it sound unnecessarily shady imo.
While technically possible, it seems very much futile. As devs, you have a huge clout advantage compared to any community member. It should be fairly obvious to anyone that any proposal that proposes a change to an ongoing proposal made by a dev (which was announced during the biggest Aavegotchi event ever) will not stand a chance. Especially considering that you guys bundled so many things together. People would have all kinds of negative reactions to this. Either they might fear that if they vote for a change that this would further delay H2, or they might be outraged how a community member dares to question the numbers that you guys came up with. Or they might be one of these people who only come out of the woodwork when you guys announce something, and not even check snapshot for other proposals.
Just to clarify, I think this is good (at least as long as the project is in its infancy). It just makes the argument of “Well, if you don’t like it, make another proposal” a bit weak.
To me, the biggest weak-point in your proposal is that you have yet to explain how you arrived at those numbers exactly. Both, the number of portals, and the percentages mentioned. I don’t think you just pulled them out of your butt, so I’d be really interested in the nitty gritty of how you arrived at them exactly. Just saying “the threads have been online for weeks” and “we considered and compiled what everyone wrote” is not an answer to this (referring to Jesse’s discord responses).
If you had included a link in the medium article to a more in-depth explanation of those exact numbers, you might have gotten in front of any criticism about the proposed changes.
Thank you very much for continuing to improve and develop this project that we all love so much! Keep up the good work.