I do not know guys what attracted you to the Tezos ICO.
In my case, I was attracted by the on-chain governance and that means no special rights for any ecosystem actor to introduce off-chain amendments.
Why should we trust on a off-chain amendment protocol managed by a single dev team? Who decides actually which are the limits to these off-chain amendments? Who agreed with this procedure not included on the whitepaper? How will future teams be attracted to amend a protocol which actually runs an off-chain amendment process, when the official ecosystem actors suggest so to the "community" (using for that our ICO funds..)?
Of course it is important to introduce changes to make more agile fixing bugs (not only for current amendments but also for former amendments/code...), but this should be done according to the on-chain procedure stated on the white-paper.
If Babylon is approved, we are going to see how many Tezos actors decide to leave this promise.. and how many others will not enter on a fake on-chain procedure that is actually centralized.
With no word there is no honor, only a continous fight to make better lies.
We are temporarily hosting a subset of the tzscan api on https://t.co/cMSheyeAqS based on conseil, this project will be open sourced so you can host it yourself!— TulipTools 🌷 ⚙️ (@TulipToolsOU) Octo...