My opinion will not be much different from others, but I have some questions to understand the further restructuring of Onomy and some of my observations before I write the answers.
Questions:
- If we plan to phase out the Onex network, will we remain ICS in the future or will new products be already on the Onomy network?
- Do I understand correctly that we will not have a hybrid exchange for trading, but will have a Swap DEX without an order book?
- Do I understand correctly that there will be a Forex market without AMM, but with the help of an order book?
As far as I explain this to myself, these steps were taken to speed up the implementation of the IFS and the Forex market, so as not to initially spend a lot of resources on recreating the ONEX exchange. Which seems quite logical.
As for taking the IST module, I think it’s a great idea to speed up the process of realizing Onomy’s vision and move forward quickly.
Now about the painful part. I am at the crossroads of points A and C. In order to make a fair decision, I believe that it is necessary to consider all the damage that Charles caused and the benefit that he brought or can bring to Onomy. In the restructuring plan, we will abandon ONEX which Charles created, we will not use his development of the reserve module, then what contribution of Charles can we use for Onomy as the founder? As far as I understand, Charles is a good architect, but what of what Charles did will we use in Onomy? As someone who was not involved in the development of Onomy, this is not clear to me and if Charles or the core team could clarify this point, I would appreciate it pushing me closer to point A, otherwise, for the work he did, he has already paid himself a salary and I don’t see the point of leaving him 50% of the tokens, which pushes my choice to point C. Now about the harm to the Onomy project. You can read about this in detail here: Reserve coming soon - #4 by Nomad and I see no point in repeating myself, I think that the harm to the project has been colossal not only at the moment, but also in the last year. I also want to point out how Charles initially submitted the funding request with the emphasis that if you don’t vote for the funding, he will stop coding and shut down the cloud infrastructure, which will impact Onomy, which seems like manipulation. I also consider it a manipulation when Charles did not receive support from the DAO and after that he began to be nice to everyone and say that he would now continue to work for free in order to realize Onomy’s vision (in fact, it looks like he understood that there would be a proposal for restructuring and he was nice to the community so that they choose point A over C). I have some other comments, but they are not so significant, so I will not write about them at the moment.
Result:
- Yes, but more transparent
- Yes, but more transparent
- At the moment, I am more inclined to point C instead of A, given the above. If they explain to me the value of Charles as a founder that we have received or can receive, I may change my mind. We can also consider item A, but to leave him a smaller percentage (it all depends on his contribution to Onomy).
Update: Following Charles’ answer, I definitely choose option C.