@trent_vanepps: "ethereum UBI", of course, refers to the people who build the chain looking to be paid for their work. seems pretty str…

“ethereum UBI”, of course, refers to the people who build the chain looking to be paid for their work. seems pretty straightforward

gabe injects a fresh, childlike rhetoric to these funding discussions, as in: unmoored from reality, ignorant of context, overconfident

note: my comments above are arguing the abstract “core devs shd be compensated via neutral, scalable, consistent mech.”, not the validator redirect proposal in question

while i appreciate the design space exploration, i think some of the decisions/tradeoffs are disqualifying

lol. (setting linux aside) open source broadly has scraped by for decades on the backs of altruistic, underfunded maintainers who often get no compensation for their work. the ones that do make a living are in the minority

dev mine

personally, i actually think the tradeoff’s in clements proposal are disqualifying. but i’m beginning to think you actually haven’t read it yourself

only useless parasites get funded from taxes

thank you for proving my point above with this overgeneralization

i’m talking about his rhetoric, the vehicle used to communicate sentiment

if we’re talking about the meat of the specific proposal, we actually agree! i dont think it’s suitable for a number of reasons

Lefteris lfg

Fully agree - from my article: “we should aim to create the most robust network resources for the broadest set of public beneficiaries”

yes, it is possible to have this dynamic. but what we’re opening up is a place on the tradeoff spectrum

Chromium

glad you mentioned this one. there are pretty compelling perspectives that this “market outcome” is effectively a monopoly which affords the company logistical power to shape standards/the internet

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/20539517231182399…

i stand corrected.

they ignored all my comments

i mean if you fundamentally disagree with a premise, it’s unlikely your feedback will be incorporated, that feels reasonable

hm i dont think that’s the case based on likes and DMs - but it’s not like you could you know this

i’m using the same blunt language that gabe did when he insinuates that core devs are entitled for wanting continuity of funding. i make no apologies for pushing back, and i’d rather do that on their behalf than have them stop doing the actual important work to join the circus that is this media environment

thank you for the feedback though!

if i tried to opine on matters of law, gabe would be well within his rights to call me out where i was wrong, in over my head. even more so if i were aggressively presenting a picture of a world that doesn’t exist

i dont see why it’s any different in the reverse