Correct. We never worked in isolation here and merely tried to put our understanding of what is feasible and supported into the proposal. We are happy to alter it according to community consensus. This forum where responses are delayed by days is not the best form of back and forth dialogue. It leads to misunderstandings.
In this case, we already have a oneBTC stablecoin. It uses wBTC. We hoped to convert it to renBTC. The more funds in its treasury, the better we can drive adoption of both oneBTC and renVM.
This statement alone is disqualifying for consideration of our DNO funds to me.
The number of projects who claim their raison dâĂȘtre is to âfulfill the original vision of Bitcoinâs whitepaperâ is akin to a fork of Christianity that spins off because they think everyone else got Jesus wrong and they need to set the record straight. Or, for the non-religious, the xkcd comic about creating a 14th standard.
The market has deemed BTC to be Bitcoin. All of the other Bitcoin forks are zombie chains and all of them had the same line about fulfilling Satoshiâs vision.
Q: This is so silly and stupid. How is this dumb effort different from all of the other âfulfill the original vision of Bitcoinâ Bitcoin forks and failures?
A: It hodls real Bitcoin - like the rest of the Bitcoin community. It is the first stablecoin to do this. And stablecoins just reached over $100B in market capitalization. It isnât a fork or competitive at all. It will be adopted by the Bitcoin community so that they donât sell Bitcoin for fiat or any of the things you mentioned.