Title: Dispute
User name: Ignas
Reason for dispute:
- My comment on this proposal: [Non-Constitutional] Service Provider Utilisation Framework - #4 by Ignas
This comment provided clear value by:
- Supporting the overall direction of the proposal and framing it as a way to improve governance efficiency, something many delegates struggle with today.
- Raising a concern about the auto-pass mechanism in the Optimistic Governance Module and suggesting a safeguard (requiring explicit approvals).
- Asking for more clarity on how service providers will be selected, while suggest the need to leave room for new players.
The author even shared this comment on X, showing that it resonated with them - https://x.com/ImmutableLawyer/status/1902976976354226523. I believe it added to the discussion and should not have been scored 0.
- My comment on this proposal: GMC's Preferred Choices for 7,500 ETH RFP - #54 by Ignas
While the forum comment was brief, it was backed by a well-researched blog post analyzing Fluid. I shared a link to that analysis to help delegates understand the project better. The intent was to contribute to more informed decision-making.
Would appreciate a review of both cases. Thanks!